Camera Gurus inside please!--- EDIT!!! Made my choice.

[Hayabusa Rider]

I need to purchase a 35 mm SLR. The budget for camera and lens (general purpose) is about 1000 USD. I have a few ideas and have PM's with one or two camera guys here. What do you suggest within that budget?


Yes, not digital. I will be shooting transparencies often with landscape/nature/architecture being the most common subjects.

 

You should get a Canon Rebel 2000 with a great assortment of lenses. The camera is great, and Canon lenses are sweet! Or is it imperative that you need a high-end body?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: jumpr
You should get a Canon Rebel 2000 with a great assortment of lenses. The camera is great, and Canon lenses are sweet! Or is it imperative that you need a high-end body?

I would like something durable, but here is the problem. If I get something like the EOS 3, then I cannot get a good lens, but if I get a good lens, would a lesser body be adequate? Everything is a trade off.

 

[nsafreak]

You might want to look into some older cameras as well, main reason being that they're built a good bit sturdier than new cameras are nowadays. I personally own a Minolta SRT-101 which has an all steel body, real rugged camera although probably not best for what you're going to be using your camera for. You might want to look around some camera shops for a Canon AE series camera, a Nikon F series or perhaps a Minolta although I don't have a series in mind for them. Your best bet would be a Nikon F body and a few Nikkor lenses as they are some of the best quality lenses around.

 

[blues008]

$1000 budget for a camera and lens is quite a bit if this is your first 35 mm SLR.

I did a lot of research before buying my first 35 mm SLR, and after looking at Canon, Nikon, Pentax, etc. I chose the Nikon N80. It's a great camera, and I have no regrets about the purchase. \

With a $1000 you should be able to afford the N80 kit, an extended warranty, UV filter, polarizer, lens cleaning kit, batteries, and a very nice 24-85mm lens.

Good luck and feel free to PM.

 

Personally (and this is from an inexperienced noob whose only real experience is photographing for a high school newspaper) I think that lenses are more important than the body itself. If you're shooting something, you won't care about the quality of the picture if the lens can't zoom that far.

Go for function first (i.e. expand the capabilities of your camera) and form second (i.e. the quality of the photos).

 

[NogginBoink]

I like my Minolta Maxxum 7.

But you can't go wrong with a Nikon or Canon. Every accessory you could possible imagine is available for 'em.

 

[IBuyUFO]

Don't buy a kit. They often throw in the cheap lens or lenses. The nikon n80 looks like nice camera for a beginner. I've held it a couple of times and it feels durable. It does lack some of the features that the nikon f5 has like mirror lockup. Some people think it's critical to have it because it reduces vibration when the camera is set on the tripod but I haven't noticed any different with and without it in the f5. Like the poster said above that lenses are the most critical parts in a camera. With cheap lenses you will not get good pictures.

 

[NogginBoink]

Here's my advice:

Go to a real camera store. Not a store that sells cameras along with other stuff. In general, the people that run those stores are Good People.

Camera stores tend to congregate around college towns.

They'll usually have a wide selection of used inventory as well as new inventory.

Talk to a salesman there and ask for guidance. They'll probably point you in the right direction.

 

[lowtech1]

"landscape/nature/architecture"

Landscape - what type of landscape are you looking at....cityscape or countryscape/nature?

Nature - what type of nature....lanscapes, wild animals, or miniture/micro?

Architechture - Indoor or outdoor?

You might want a high quality distortion corrected wide angle lens 20mm, 24mm for cityscape, but for countryscape & nature any wide angle lens will do.

Get a 400mm or greater fast telephoto if you want to take picture of wild animals, and 100mm or 180mm macro lens for minature.

And, how serious are you regarding architecture photography?
You can get a way with nice corrected 20mm, 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, or 50mm if it is out door. However, indoor you might want to get tilt shift lens to correct the barrel distortion & keystone effect.

$1000 is quite limited in what you can do. Ask yourself to see what type of photography will be the most important to you then make your purchase accordingly. And, you might want to look into a used setup to strech your budget.....you don't really need auto focus with the type of photography that you describe above.

 

[todpod]

I would consider a mid range camera like a Nikon N-80, and couple it with Sigma or Tameron lenses. For what you what get a good short zoom 28-105 in that range and spend less on a longer 70-200 zoom. Even if you don't use it that much its nice to have.

I wouldn't worry to much about camera brand, Canon, Minolta, Nikon and Pentax all make fine cameras, So pick the camera that has the features that you need.

 

[CFster]

I'd buy a basic fully manual Nikon body and some sweet Nikon lenses.

Face it, if you're going to be doing some professional type photography then you won't need Auto, Aperature, Shutter Priority, Autofocus blah blah or whatever hairbrained Program mode they've come up with now. To be creative you'll be using settings "other" that what the camera recommends. You'll also want to use a high quality light meter and figure out your shutter speed and F-stops. This all depends on you level of expertise as well. But I can tell you that most photography classes start everybody out with manual cameras so they learn how to set everything and understand what those settings do.

All the body has to do is open and close the shutter accurately. Just buy a fully manual Nikon (used even) - they're tough as nails. Spend your money on high quality lenses instead - those WILL make a difference, but only in the hands of somebody who knows what they're doing.

 

[Sid59]

just remember .. optics are more important than the body. optics are more imporatant than the body. optics are more important than the body.

have the Nikon FE2, 55mm F1.2 and a 70-210 f2.8-4

 

[CFster]

Originally posted by: Sid59
just remember .. optics are more important than the body. optics are more imporatant than the body. optics are more important than the body.

have the Nikon FE2, 55mm F1.2 and a 70-210 f2.8-4

What he said.

 

[Ornery]

Originally posted by: NogginBoink
Here's my advice:

Go to a real camera store. Not a store that sells cameras along with other stuff. In general, the people that run those stores are Good People.

Camera stores tend to congregate around college towns.

They'll usually have a wide selection of used inventory as well as new inventory.

Talk to a salesman there and ask for guidance. They'll probably point you in the right direction.

While you're at the shop, check out the used equipment. There should be a TON of it. Everybody's going digital. The fellow behind the counter could tell you which is the best bang for the buck. Last time I glanced at used equipment, which was about ten years ago, there were so many wonderful old cameras it would have been hard to choose. None selling for even half their original cost... including a couple lens!

Edit: Hey! Want a nice Contax 137md Quartz with a 50mm Zeiss lens?

 

[lowtech1]

Originally posted by: todpod
I would consider a mid range camera like a Nikon N-80, and couple it with Sigma or Tameron lenses. For what you what get a good short zoom 28-105 in that range and spend less on a longer 70-200 zoom. Even if you don't use it that much its nice to have.

I wouldn't worry to much about camera brand, Canon, Minolta, Nikon and Pentax all make fine cameras, So pick the camera that has the features that you need.

Why buy name brand camera body then tack after market lenses on it. Tamaron/Sigma does make very nice lenses, but they aren't as good as Nikon/Canon. And, if you are seriouse about architecture photoraphy or nature then there is nothing better than prime lenses.

 

[lowtech1]

Originally posted by: CFster
I'd buy a basic fully manual Nikon body and some sweet Nikon lenses.

Face it, if you're going to be doing some professional type photography then you won't need Auto, Aperature, Shutter Priority, Autofocus blah blah or whatever hairbrained Program mode they've come up with now. To be creative you'll be using settings "other" that what the camera recommends. You'll also want to use a high quality light meter and figure out your shutter speed and F-stops. This all depends on you level of expertise as well. But I can tell you that most photography classes start everybody out with manual cameras so they learn how to set everything and understand what those settings do.

All the body has to do is open and close the shutter accurately. Just buy a fully manual Nikon (used even) - they're tough as nails. Spend your money on high quality lenses instead - those WILL make a difference, but only in the hands of somebody who knows what they're doing.

Hand held light meter is nice, but it can be difficult to get a reading of your subject if it is a wild tiger, or across a valley. On camera multi-segment is extremely accurate for most shooting condition, and there is such thing as spot metering that you can use to over ride difficult lighting.

 

[todpod]

My point was he has a $1000 budget, and is a little gun shy about purchasing a entry level camera. I haven't look at prices lately, but a N-80 should be in the 4-500 (b&h has it for $399) dollar range. That leaves about $600 for lenses.

S0 assuming $399 for the body
$299 for a sigma 24-135 2.8-4.5 and
$209 for a sigma 70-300 4-5.6 zoom.

That leaves him maybe $100 for a flash-tripod etc. You won't cover that range with lenses from Nikon, canon etc. I am not arguing that these would be better then oem lenses, Its a bang form the buck. Moving back to a Rebel body or similiar Nikon body may enable him to stick with oem lenses i don't know.

It also depends on how serious he is about his photography and if he is going to try and sell the images, but the quaility of the photographer is the most important element in a photo not the equipment.

So there is my 2 cents for what its worth.


BTW He may be able to purchase used lenses from KeH or such and stick with OEM

 

[przero]

Why not digital?

 

[bigi]

Canon Elan IIE + Canon 28-80 2.8L

It should add to $1000-1200, but well worth the price...

 

[lowtech1]

Originally posted by: todpod
My point was he has a $1000 budget, and is a little gun shy about purchasing a entry level camera. I haven't look at prices lately, but a N-80 should be in the 4-500 (b&h has it for $399) dollar range. That leaves about $600 for lenses.

S0 assuming $399 for the body
$299 for a sigma 24-135 2.8-4.5 and
$209 for a sigma 70-300 4-5.6 zoom.

That leaves him maybe $100 for a flash-tripod etc. You won't cover that range with lenses from Nikon, canon etc. I am not arguing that these would be better then oem lenses, Its a bang form the buck. Moving back to a Rebel body or similiar Nikon body may enable him to stick with oem lenses i don't know.

It also depends on how serious he is about his photography and if he is going to try and sell the images, but the quaility of the photographer is the most important element in a photo not the equipment.

So there is my 2 cents for what its worth.


BTW He may be able to purchase used lenses from KeH or such and stick with OEM

Assuming that all requirements from Winston Smith is very important. He then might want to look at the lenses below:\

Canon 45mm, or 24mm tilt-shift lens (Nikon don't have the equivalent to it, but it does have an older tilt lens if you can find a used one) at around $1000.

The lens above dictates what body he should have, and then any Canon body would do. I can't recall which famous photographer said, ?a camera is just a black box that have a hole to let light in to expose the film?.

Canon 20mm wide angle lens at around $450, or 24mm at around $300.

Canon 50mm f1.8 at around $70.

Canon 100mm macro at around $450.

Canon 100~400mm zoom with Image Stablizer Motor (ISM) at around $1400, or 75~300mm ISM for $400.

If he can do away with the tilt-shift lens, and go for used equipment then the lenses from 20mm to 100mm macro should cost around $600 for Canon/Nikon prime lenses, and what ever body that his heart desire. But he will need to put out some more money for the long telephoto (I prefer the ISM motor because it can effectively add 1.5~2 f-stop to hand-held and sharpen tri-pod shooting condition).

 

[DurocShark]

#1: Lens is everything
#2: Unless you get a very nice AF camera, go for the maual focus ones. Particularly for landscape work since you'll need all the control you can get.
#3: Go medium format instead of 35mm... Larger film = larger enlargements

You can find like a Minolta TLR or a Mamiya TLR for a coupla hundred dollars and those rock for landscape work. Or go with a Hassy, though those get pretty expensive.

Good luck!

 

[AmigaMan]

Originally posted by: lowtech

Originally posted by: todpod
My point was he has a $1000 budget, and is a little gun shy about purchasing a entry level camera. I haven't look at prices lately, but a N-80 should be in the 4-500 (b&h has it for $399) dollar range. That leaves about $600 for lenses.

S0 assuming $399 for the body
$299 for a sigma 24-135 2.8-4.5 and
$209 for a sigma 70-300 4-5.6 zoom.

That leaves him maybe $100 for a flash-tripod etc. You won't cover that range with lenses from Nikon, canon etc. I am not arguing that these would be better then oem lenses, Its a bang form the buck. Moving back to a Rebel body or similiar Nikon body may enable him to stick with oem lenses i don't know.

It also depends on how serious he is about his photography and if he is going to try and sell the images, but the quaility of the photographer is the most important element in a photo not the equipment.

So there is my 2 cents for what its worth.


BTW He may be able to purchase used lenses from KeH or such and stick with OEM

Assuming that all requirements from Winston Smith is very important. He then might want to look at the lenses below:\

Canon 45mm, or 24mm tilt-shift lens (Nikon don't have the equivalent to it, but it does have an older tilt lens if you can find a used one) at around $1000.

The lens above dictates what body he should have, and then any Canon body would do. I can't recall which famous photographer said, ?a camera is just a back box that have a hole to let light in to expose the film?.

Canon 20mm wide angle lens at around $450, or 24mm at around $300.

Canon 50mm f1.8 at around $70.

Canon 100mm macro at around $450.

Canon 100~400mm zoom with Image Stablizer Motor (ISM) at around $1400, or 75~300mm ISM for $400.

If he can do away with the tilt-shift lens, and go for used equipment then the lenses from 20mm to 100mm macro should cost around $600 for Canon/Nikon prime lenses, and what ever body that his heart desire. But he will need to put out some more money for the long telephoto (I prefer the ISM motor because it can effectively add 1.5~2 f-stop to hand-held and sharpen tri-pod shooting condition).

I don't understand why you would recommend several thousand dollars worth of lenses when he only has $1000 to spend. He's not a national geographic photographer yet (at least I don't think he is), he's looking for entry level equipment. Spend 250-500 for the body and spend the rest on the lens. BHPhoto has a Nikon N80 with a Nikon 28-80 lens for $450. Spend the other $550 on a nice zoom lens and you should be set.

 

[SaigonK]

I am a big fan of the Minolta line, have had one for ages - started with a 7000 series then on to a 7si and now i want to buy a 9si

 

[WhiteKnight]

I like the Maxxum 7 too. That plus a nice set of lenses will do the job nicely for you.