Beginner Beginner Kit on a budget

[EJG]

Hi all,

I'm looking at getting into photography as a hobby, I've used a few cameras here and there, and I am currently having a good read of all kinds of guides I can find.

Do any of you have any recommendations of reasonably priced cameras and lenses good for shooting fast paced action Sports such as Jetskiing and Car Racing etc?

I have seen a couple of low priced Cameras the Nikon D3300 and the Canon EOS 1200D. The Canon comes with a Tamron 700 300mm lens. I've heard mixed reviews about that lens though. I don't suppose there are any reasons to steer away from either Camera?

I've got some knowledge of what to look for with photos and editing them in Light room and Photoshop as I used to work in Graphic design and print, which meant I was often editing photos, so hopefully that's something I can use with my photography too.

Any advice is greatly appreciated! Thanks in advance.

 

[jonbeeza]

I have the D3300 on order as a basic knocking about the park camera, I intend to stick my 35mm 1.8G on it. It should be fast enough for me to catch the grand kids dashing about, and my dog . I am sure someone will be along shortly, to give you an idea what is the best lens to use

 

[tom24]

Nikon wise, look at the d7000 at least if you're going to try sports, I started with a d3200 but soon traded that for the d7000.
The reason for changing was being able to change settings easier on the body buttons without searching menus.

You can get the d7000 for a good price and a tamron 70-300 vc lens will start you off, camera body and tammy lens should cost around £500, the tammy lens is not the cheap variant you can find for sale but the one around £200 although often cheaper.
I'm no expert though, just a beginner of a year but I really think you'd benefit from starting with the above as I soon needed the controls at my fingertips.

 

[kokolino23]

I'd say depends on the budget. That would help to get a good advise here as well. I think the lens matters more and you can get both second hand camera and lens to start off with.

 

[tom24]

I'd say depends on the budget. That would help to get a good advise here as well. I think the lens matters more and you can get both second hand camera and lens to start off with.

Yep, don't be put off by going used, you'll get a bargain, esp' on here once you've got your posts and time in

 

[Craig20264]

You'll need to be looking at the 'Frames Per Second' and buffering rates for fast paced sports, coupled with a fast Auto focusing lens. Difficult to do well on a budget I imagine. Second Hand is definitely the way to go I think to give yourself a realistic chance of getting a good combo. D7000 would be a good start I think as it's Nikons lowest priced Body with an Auto Focus Motor.

 

[EJG]

Thanks for all of your replies. I have heard that it's best to invest more into a lens than the camera. I suppose that's correct to a certain extent...

What is the Canon equivalent to the D7000?

 

[Craig20264]

Thanks for all of your replies. I have heard that it's best to invest more into a lens than the camera. I suppose that's correct to a certain extent...

What is the Canon equivalent to the D7000?

I don't believe that any modern Canon bodies have an Autofocus motor built in. One of the Canon guys should be along shortly to verify that.

 

[tom24]

Thanks for all of your replies. I have heard that it's best to invest more into a lens than the camera. I suppose that's correct to a certain extent...

What is the Canon equivalent to the D7000?

There can be only one...Nikon..lol and yes lens is more important, much more so if trying for your sports images

 

[EJG]

Okay thanks guys. Is there anything particular I should be looking out for with second hand equipment besides the usual general condition and wear?

 

[EdwardL]

Canon's are pretty good - probably better than Nikons ... hoping there was a BIG STIR smiley but there isn't

Best camera is the one you feel most comfortable with - just like cars in many ways.

I'm quite old fashioned and am fond of full frame - it doesn't have to be brand new but there are some perfectly good second hand models out there.

 

[EdwardL]

Okay thanks guys. Is there anything particular I should be looking out for with second hand equipment besides the usual general condition and wear?

You posted seconds before me - I only know Canons but if you can stretch to a 6D you won't regret it - a wonderful machine. the 5DMk2 is also excellent but up until a year or so ago I'd be recommending the 5DMk1 but it just doesn't cut the mustard these days.

6D's aren't cheap but if you can afford it then it should last you for a good 2-3 years+. I bought mine last February and have taken 40,000+ photos and (unless I drop and break it) I'll be keeping it for 2-3 more years then it will be my backup camera when the 8D(???) comes out.

What I'm saying is, don't be afraid of 2nd hand cameras - especially when bought from a dealer as they have a reputation to maintain.

And Nikons/Canons - it comes down to personal preference - except Canons are better!

 

[The Image Team]

I get on better with Canon which is why I have three Canon bodies. I find a Nikon a bit fiddley compared to even a basic Canon. I started in motorsport on a 300d before changing up to a 1D Mk.II and now two Mk.IV. I still have the Mk.II as a body I can afford to lose doing rallies.

You are right that its the glass that makes more difference than the body. I always say that there is no point splashing out on expensive bodies. Its the bit in front of the body and donkey behind it that really make the photo.

If you are looking to start out right in motorsports go for the best glass you can afford. I've been in it for 5 years and am still getting the kit right because I cheaped out early on and brought lenses that would just about do the job rather than save a bit more and get the right tool for the job. A reasonable two lens solution would be something like a 70-200mm (f2.8 if you can afford it, if not go for an f4) and something a bit longer, up to about 400mm. If you want a bit more variety you can put a 24-105 in to the bag for pit lane and paddock work, they also do well for panning shots if you want lots of context and not a lot of car. Nearly every tog in the press room at any British race track will have the 70-200 f2.8 and most American togs swear by the Canon 500mm L as their go to lens.

It also depends on where you are planning to shoot. If you are going to Castle Coombe, Oulton Park or Donington, shorter lenses will do fine. If you are headed to Silverstone, ask NASA if you can borrow Hubble, you are going to need it with all that run off.

Once MPB deliver my most recent order, my kit bag will be this:

Sigma 15-30mm f3.5 super wide angle.
Canon EF 24-105mm f4 L IS USM
Canon 70-200mm f4 L USM - Being sold to make way for:
Canon 70-200mm f2.8 L IS USM
Canon 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L IS USM
Sigma 120-400mm f4.5-5.6 DG OS HSM - Being sold in favour of the L series equivalent above.
Sigma 300mm f2.8 EX OS HSM

Non Canon x2 teleconverter
Metz for Canon Speedlight - just a spare
Neewer Speedlight - Being usurped by:
Canon 580 EX II Speedlight
Neewer Flashgun powerpack.

1x 1D Mk.II
2x 1D Mk.IV

It gives me a massive amount of flexability but very little of it is very portable. If you are looking to get properly into it then heading in this direction is a good start but it isn't cheap. You are looking at the better part of nine grands worth of kit and it doesn't include items which have been sold along the way, like the 300d, the 18-55 EF-S, 28-80 EF, 70-300 EF, a 1D Mk.1 which I didn't get on with. All of that together probably cost another 1500 quid and brought back around the 800 mark when I sold it.

If you want to do low-light work then get the lowest aperture lenses you can afford but, and don't take this the wrong way, if you want to be a fair weather playtographer anything up to f4-6 will handle most of what you need. And don't forget that really if you get a gig on and need something a bit bigger, you can always hire.

On a side note, keep an eye out in your local Cash Converters/CEX/Pawn Shop. You occasionally find some very good deals in those kinds of places.

 

[Phil V]

I don't believe that any Canon bodies have an Autofocus motor built in. One of the Canon guys should be along shortly to verify that.

FTFY

 

[wave01]

IMHO you need to get a body that you are comfortable with then get a lens that does what you want

 

[The Image Team]

I don't believe that any modern Canon bodies have an Autofocus motor built in. One of the Canon guys should be along shortly to verify that.

FTFY

I am not an expert in Camera construction but Canon mount the AF motor in the lens dont they? That way if you lose an AF motor, you can just switch lenses and carry on shooting rather than with a Nikon where if you don't have a spare body you are done.

 

[Phil V]

I am not an expert in Camera construction but Canon mount the AF motor in the lens dont they? That way if you lose an AF motor, you can just switch lenses and carry on shooting rather than with a Nikon where if you don't have a spare body you are done.

Trying not to get partisan, but that's not the reasoning.

When AF came along, Canon understood that in body motors would never be good enough, that in lens motors were the clear choice, and they upset a lot of people by inventing a mount for the next generation of cameras.

It took Nikon nearly 30 years to finally put together a system that beat Canons AF, and none of the others has ever got close, which is a vindication of that decision.

Bizarrely some manufacturers still cling to the 'you can use any of our legacy lenses' as a badge of honour, this only becomes ridiculous when you know that (for instance) an old K mount lens has better functionality* on a Canon EOS body or a mirror less via an adaptor than it does on a modern Pentax body, due to the bodging Pentax have had to put in place.

*some have no metering available at all, but on Canon bodies stop down metering is available.

 

[boyfalldown]

It took Nikon nearly 30 years to finally put together a system that beat Canons AF, and none of the others has ever got close, which is a vindication of that decision.

while you're right about it being the right thing to do...if it took Nikon 30 years to catch up that means they'd manage it in 2017

QUOTE="The Image Team, post: 7341097, member: 81066"]That way if you lose an AF motor, you can just switch lenses and carry on shooting rather than with a Nikon where if you don't have a spare body you are done.[/QUOTE]

just to clarify, every Nikon lens introduced since 1998 has had an inbuilt motor. There are one or two more esoteric lenses floating round without motors, but pretty much the entire range has been updated to include an inbuilt motor

 

[Phil V]

while you're right about it being the right thing to do...if it took Nikon 30 years to catch up that means they'd manage it in 2017

I was half asleep. I was thinking 80's to early 2000's

 

[boyfalldown]

I was half asleep. I was thinking 80's to early 2000's

) with your maths would you like to discuss lending me some money

 

[mused]

just saved around £600 I hope to buy something good to start with :

 

[StewartR]

just to clarify, every Nikon lens introduced since 1998 has had an inbuilt motor. There are one or two more esoteric lenses floating round without motors, but pretty much the entire range has been updated to include an inbuilt motor

1998? I didn't think it was that long ago, so I'm afraid I had to check. And having done the research, it woud be rude not to share what I discovered.

I think what caused my belief was the observation that there are so many Nikon lenses still around today which rely on the in-camera focusing motor. As far as I can tell there are about 18 of these designs still in production. But most of them were introduced in 1993 to 1995, and presumably they've stayed in production because they've been in demand for video applications.

Still, strange as it may seem, Nikon's last non-motorised AF lenses were actually introduced this side of the millennium. The 50mm f/1.8 D came out in 2002, and the 10.5mm f/2.8 DX fisheye came out in 2003, and they both have the old-style autofocus. Who'd have thought it?

 

[seriousrikk]

Just throwing some ideas in.

If you are happy buying used something such as Nikon D7000 with a 55-300mm VR would set you back roughly £400 if you buy Nikon. Canon you could end up with a 7D and a 55-250mm for roughly the same. Both would be very capable starter kits and coming well under your budget it leaves room for an accessories you might need.

 

[boyfalldown]

1998? I didn't think it was that long ago, so I'm afraid I had to check. And having done the research, it woud be rude not to share what I discovered.

I think what caused my belief was the observation that there are so many Nikon lenses still around today which rely on the in-camera focusing motor. As far as I can tell there are about 18 of these designs still in production. But most of them were introduced in 1993 to 1995, and presumably they've stayed in production because they've been in demand for video applications.

Still, strange as it may seem, Nikon's last non-motorised AF lenses were actually introduced this side of the millennium. The 50mm f/1.8 D came out in 2002, and the 10.5mm f/2.8 DX fisheye came out in 2003, and they both have the old-style autofocus. Who'd have thought it?

Fair enough. I was just going by the date AF-S was first introduced. Is still a fair while ago. It'd be interesting to know (well you know what I mean, please don't waste time looking) how many of those 18 designs aren't superseded by something else, I'm sure for example the 50 mm f/1.8 D and S are both produced at the moment. Im a little surprised by the fisheye. I didn't know Nikon had ever produced a DX lens without an internal motor. Cheers for that

 

[StewartR]

Im a little surprised by the fisheye. I didn't know Nikon had ever produced a DX lens without an internal motor. Cheers for that

It is surprising, isn't it?

Here's another one. You know, I assume, that not all AF-S lenses are G-type - in other words, some AF-S lenses have aperture rings. But did you know that Nikon once produced a G-type lens which wasn't AF-S, ie didn't have the internal motor?

 

[StewartR]

It'd be interesting to know (well you know what I mean, please don't waste time looking) how many of those 18 designs aren't superseded by something else, I'm sure for example the 50 mm f/1.8 D and S are both produced at the moment.

To be fair, in most cases there are newer, superior designs available, but not necessarily with quite the same specifications. For example consider their 20mm, 24mm and 28mm primes. The newest designs are all f/1.8 or f/1.4 with focus motors, but they still make the older f/2.8 versions which have no focus motor.

However there are certainly a few old designs that haven't been superseded. The ones that spring immediately to mind are:
10.5mm f/2.8 DX fisheye
14mm f/2.8
16mm f/2.8 fisheye
105mm and 135mm f/2 DC
180mm f/2.8
200mm f/4 micro

 

[The Image Team]

I didnt mean imply that the breakdown redundancy was a design target for Canon, only a fortuitous occurance. I also assumed that other manufacturers would jump on the idea because it simplifies the mechanics of lens mounting, (says the man who has no idea how complex it is to transfer data between body and lens.)

 

[Phil V]

I didnt mean imply that the breakdown redundancy was a design target for Canon, only a fortuitous occurance. I also assumed that other manufacturers would jump on the idea because it simplifies the mechanics of lens mounting, (says the man who has no idea how complex it is to transfer data between body and lens.)

As above, I think you're overthinking it.

It's a simple fact that an in camera motor with an electronic connection to the body is more efficient, allowing faster and more accurate focussing. Canon decided to jump straight to that abandoning their legacy cameras and lenses, other manufacturers took their time getting to the same place because they tried to keep their customers happy.