Digital SLR suggestion needed (hobbyist looking to transition to pro)

[Arkitech]

I'm in the market for my first digital SLR, most of previous experience has been with a film 35mm which has mainly been just for fun. My goal this year is to start earning a few dollars on the side by doing portraits and some event photography (concerts, red carpet style shots, etc..). I have a friend in the entertainment field and he's graciously agreed to let me accompany him to take photos and build up a portfolio.

Since I'm an amateur with no experience using a digital SLR I'm making my buying decision based on numerous reviews, picture samples found online and feedback from other consumers. Initially I've been leaning towards going with the Rebel T3. The reviews are very positive for the camera and with the right lenses I'm hoping I can capture near professional quality photos. However if there are other cameras that should I consider that are in the price point or slightly above that I should consider I'd like to look into those as well.

Thanks for any suggestions

 

[blastingcap]

This is gonna sell out fast and could fit your needs: http://www.ebay.com/itm/190656740342#ht_7587wt_1139

$869 with a low light lens and some kit zooms and stuff.

Alternatively, consider getting just a T3i + 18-55mm + 50mm f/1.8 II (or if you have the money, a 17-50mm Sigma OS). That ought to take care of most of your needs right there. Good in low light. You will need a longer-focal length lens if you plan to shoot from a long distance, though. Not sure if you would be close up at a red carpet event or far away, for example.

I would normally recommend a Nikon d5100 for anyone looking for a mid-grade DSLR because it's the best bang for the buck for most people, but it doesn't have commander mode flash which could be important for portraits and event photography unless you already have strobe gear or don't mind getting a cheap manual-only wireless radio trigger setup. The Nikon d7k does have commander mode on the flash, but it costs $1200 which is more expensive than the entire Canon T3i bundle I linked to above.

 

[radhak]

Sorry - you need to re-adjust your sight-lines.

You are planning all this to earn professionally, but the camera you are looking at is entry level.

The T3 (or the Nikon parallel D3100) is not really suitable for professional work. Even the D5100 (like the T3i) is not really there.

I would think you need at least the Canon 60D / Nikon D7000 as your starting point. Yes, that would be around $1100 to begin with, but then, you want to earn money off it, not use it for a hobby.

< Of course, the real professionals might look down at even this as a pro-sumer and not a full professional...>

 

[RobDickinson]

Earning money as a tog is all down to what you shoot not what camera you hold.

But saying that if a paid for tog turned up with even a 60D/D7000 I personally would kick them out.

I would expect D700/5D2 or above, two bodies at least etc.

Doesnt mean you cant earn money with lower specced cameras, but I wouldnt want to try do event / weddings etc with them.

 

[blurredvision]

Earning money as a tog is all down to what you shoot not what camera you hold.

But saying that if a paid for tog turned up with even a 60D/D7000 I personally would kick them out.

I would expect D700/5D2 or above, two bodies at least etc.

Doesnt mean you cant earn money with lower specced cameras, but I wouldnt want to try do event / weddings etc with them.

If you were to hire a photographer, you would've most likely viewed a portfolio first. If you liked their work enough to give them money for it, then I seriously doubt you'd kick them out. Let's not be silly.

This is one thing I hate about photography forums. You'll read post after post about how the camera is just a tool, if you know how to take a picture then you'll get it with anything. Then the tide turns and people argue about how cameras are either consumer level or outdated. I've had my D50 for about 6 years now and when it first came it, it was fantastic. Mention it these days and it's shit. Weird, seeing as to how it takes the same quality photo it did 6 years ago.

 

[Arkitech]

This is gonna sell out fast and could fit your needs: http://www.ebay.com/itm/190656740342#ht_7587wt_1139

$869 with a low light lens and some kit zooms and stuff.

Alternatively, consider getting just a T3i + 18-55mm + 50mm f/1.8 II (or if you have the money, a 17-50mm Sigma OS). That ought to take care of most of your needs right there. Good in low light. You will need a longer-focal length lens if you plan to shoot from a long distance, though. Not sure if you would be close up at a red carpet event or far away, for example.

I would normally recommend a Nikon d5100 for anyone looking for a mid-grade DSLR because it's the best bang for the buck for most people, but it doesn't have commander mode flash which could be important for portraits and event photography unless you already have strobe gear or don't mind getting a cheap manual-only wireless radio trigger setup. The Nikon d7k does have commander mode on the flash, but it costs $1200 which is more expensive than the entire Canon T3i bundle I linked to above.

Is there really a big difference in the t3 and t3i as far as picture quality is concerned? From what I've read the t3i has a newer generation sensor, a swiveling lcd screen and the ability to record video in 1080p. But I have'nt really read any comparison articles that points to the t3i as having significantly better image quality.

 

[Farmer]

Any new body nowadays will be fine. Sensors are just that good. All you need from a sensor is low noise at low light, pretty much it. I mean, comparing my D70s to my girlfriend's D5100, sensors are very nice nowadays.

Spend your money on the lens. It will make taking good photos far easier with sharp, distortion free lens. 50mm f/1.4 for either Canon or Nikon is pretty standard, but not the ideal focal length for DX-crop sensor.

35mm f/1.4 would be the ideal carry lens. It's expensive. Rokinon makes a very very good deal (I got mine for $300) with only one drawback: no autofocus.

 

[Arkitech]

Sorry - you need to re-adjust your sight-lines.

You are planning all this to earn professionally, but the camera you are looking at is entry level.

The T3 (or the Nikon parallel D3100) is not really suitable for professional work. Even the D5100 (like the T3i) is not really there.

I would think you need at least the Canon 60D / Nikon D7000 as your starting point. Yes, that would be around $1100 to begin with, but then, you want to earn money off it, not use it for a hobby.

< Of course, the real professionals might look down at even this as a pro-sumer and not a full professional...>

At this stage I don't want to sink a lot of money into gear, especially since I have'nt earned a dime from photography yet. And from what I've read even though the T3 is an entry level camera it's capable of producing very good images when used with the right lenses. However I've heard a lot of good things about the 60D and the D7000. I've been watching a lot of photography tutorials on youtube and there are a lot of guys using the D7000.

 

[Farmer]

I don't know.

The big money is because of 1.) speed (as in FPS) or resolution, 3.) controls, 4.) durability, in that order. These four things separate "entry level" from "pro".

You do not need a "D7000 or above" to take good photos. Such cameras can get you the same images as your D3100 or D5100, only easier or faster. Nowadays, even that's not necessarily true.

The only reason I would recommend a D7000 is because the controls are more similar to the pro cameras, and are that much faster. I mean, I would never buy anything below a D7000 because I would just think it's too different, not because it's actually a bad camera. I also like CF cards, though I don't know if D7000 takes CF.

In terms of actual image quality, negligible these days. I mean, automatic metering and sensors are so good these days that anyone who knows how to frame a shot can be a decent photographer.

 

[JohnnyRebel]

Earning money as a tog is all down to what you shoot not what camera you hold.

But saying that if a paid for tog turned up with even a 60D/D7000 I personally would kick them out.

I would expect D700/5D2 or above, two bodies at least etc.

Doesnt mean you cant earn money with lower specced cameras, but I wouldnt want to try do event / weddings etc with them.

FWIW, the D5100 has better IQ than the 5D Mk II. (DxOmark score 80 vs 79) and MUCH better than the T3i (80 vs 65).

JR

 

[iGas]

FWIW, the D5100 has better IQ than the 5D Mk II. (DxOmark score 80 vs 79) and MUCH better than the T3i (80 vs 65).

JR

That is quite a bold claim.

I agree that the 5D mkII sensor is 1 generation older than the current crop, but I highly doubted that a cropped sensor have better IQ than a FF sensor.

 

[AkumaX]

I wouldn't go w/ the 60D, it's quite similar in performance w/ the T2i/T3i

D7000 or 7D if you want to start fresh, or if you want to start beginner, T2i/T3i (not T3)

---

Is there really a big difference in the t3 and t3i as far as picture quality is concerned? From what I've read the t3i has a newer generation sensor, a swiveling lcd screen and the ability to record video in 1080p. But I have'nt really read any comparison articles that points to the t3i as having significantly better image quality.

I'd say the difference is big enough. If you don't need the swiveling screen, the T2i is identical to T3i in terms of Pic/IQ.
Going from T3->T2i/T3i = 18mp, higher ISO (up to 12800), and the LCD screen resolution is totally worth it (230k vs 1040k), you can zoom in while reviewing images to make sure it is super-sharp.

 

[blastingcap]

Is there really a big difference in the t3 and t3i as far as picture quality is concerned? From what I've read the t3i has a newer generation sensor, a swiveling lcd screen and the ability to record video in 1080p. But I have'nt really read any comparison articles that points to the t3i as having significantly better image quality.

It isn't exactly a big leap but you don't want to be left behind in terms of video and such, and it's not that much more expensive.

Also if you know you will be doing lots of portraits, a 85/1.8 or 85/1.4 may be useful.

As for the guys giving you a hard time and saying you need more expensive gear, forget about them. You aren't the primary photographer; you're just the assistant at best, and probably not even that; you said you're basically tagging along. So I think getting $3k+ of gear for something that MIGHT lead to making money or maybe not, is unwise unless you're filthy rich. Better to test the waters first. Also, factor in a flash's cost in your budget. Too much emphasis goes towards camera bodies, not enough on lenses, flash (and diffuser, reflector, etc.), tripod, and of course, skill and practice.

Don't even bother reading any posts from anyone who quotes overall DxOMark scores without breaking it down or anything. That's just ridiculous. Do they even know how scoring works, what the scores mean, etc.? I suppose these geniuses would recommend a Large Format camera over, say, a Nikon D4, just because the large format camera scored higher in DxOMark. Lmao.

 

[JohnnyRebel]

That is quite a bold claim.

I agree that the 5D mkII sensor is 1 generation older than the current crop, but I highly doubted that a cropped sensor have better IQ than a FF sensor.

Bold? I'm just quoting DxOMark scores. The big difference seems to be the D5100s (and D7000s)better dynamic range.

JR

 

[JohnnyRebel]

Don't even bother reading any posts from anyone who quotes overall DxOMark scores without breaking it down or anything. That's just ridiculous. Do they even know how scoring works, what the scores mean, etc.? I suppose these geniuses would recommend a Large Format camera over, say, a Nikon D4, just because the large format camera scored higher in DxOMark. Lmao.

Back off, man; I'm a scientist.

JR

 

[radhak]

This is one thing I hate about photography forums. You'll read post after post about how the camera is just a tool, if you know how to take a picture then you'll get it with anything. Then the tide turns and people argue about how cameras are either consumer level or outdated. I've had my D50 for about 6 years now and when it first came it, it was fantastic. Mention it these days and it's shit. Weird, seeing as to how it takes the same quality photo it did 6 years ago.

No arguments there - I have a D90 and a friend has a D50, and with the pics he's taken he could easily be employed as a photog whereas I'd be laughed out. The person matters more than the camera.

But for somebody starting off today, with the certain intention of turning professional, buying a relatively 'lesser' camera for immediate price advantage is penny-wise/pound-foolish. (Even that aforementioned friend would not buy a D50 off craigslist today if he had the opportunity).

I am a Nikonite, so I'll leave the Canons for others to analyze. But compared to the D5100, the D7000 offers all this extra : a larger and brighter viewfinder, built-in focus motor (you can use a lot more, older, cheaper and maybe sharper lenses), weather-proof sealing, 39 auto-focus points with 9 cross-type that allow better tracking (vs 11 with a single cross-type), top mounted LCD, 6 FPS (vs 4 FPS), two SD card port (very useful for pro work), 20 scene-modes (vs 16), higher battery life between charges, ability to use flash in commander mode (ie, you could use flashes not attached to camera - much needed for pro work) and some ISO advantage.

The only things of D5100 missing in D7000 are the articulated LCD and more scene modes on the dial itself.

At this stage I don't want to sink a lot of money into gear, especially since I have'nt earned a dime from photography yet. And from what I've read even though the T3 is an entry level camera it's capable of producing very good images when used with the right lenses. However I've heard a lot of good things about the 60D and the D7000. I've been watching a lot of photography tutorials on youtube and there are a lot of guys using the D7000.

I can relate to the money aspect - you don't want to spend money just because others (like me) demand you do so; the D5100 is a great camera, and you might as well end up earning pro money off it. But look at the list of differences I laid out above, and decide if they seem stuff you might want.

Personal experience tells me that once you get any DSLR camera, upgrading to the next level involves more money than what you'd have put originally.

 

[swanysto]

Arkitech. I have the T3. And quality wise, it is on par with the T3i(it really does depend on the photographer). You will be happy with it at first. But if I were you, I would save up and buy a used 5d(or some variant). I wish I would have done that, cause after you really start learning a lot, you will want to upgrade. Better ISO performance, and better auto focus systems are well worth it in my opinion.

Some will say buy expensive glass instead, but if I could do it over, I would start with a more expensive body. Cause inexpensive glass can be worked with. The insufficiency I see with my T3 can not be.

Not to mention, I will take a much bigger loss reselling my T3 than others will selling their 5d's, 60D's etc.

 

[shortylickens]

I think your very first SLR should be a factory refurbished Nikon D40x for dirt cheap. It will help you decide what features you really want from your next camera (which in my case took 5 whole years) and you wont feel like you pissed away a lot of money to learn. If it comes with the VR lens you should keep that and just buy a body next time around.

 

[radhak]

I think your very first SLR should be a factory refurbished Nikon D40x for dirt cheap. It will help you decide what features you really want from your next camera (which in my case took 5 whole years) and you wont feel like you pissed away a lot of money to learn. If it comes with the VR lens you should keep that and just buy a body next time around.

That's a great suggestion, and I'd go further to say craigslist may not be a bad option either (my D40, then my D90, and all my lenses, are from CL). Just yesterday I saw a D40 for $250 on my local CL.

 

[CptObvious]

I agree that the model of camera shouldn't matter, but it does. Clients' satisfaction of your work is subconsciously affected by appearances. If a photographer showed up at a shoot I paid for with a Rebel, I'd be immediately suspicious. I use a D5100 but if I were shooting for pay, I'd go back to the 5D (you can buy a used one for around $800-900).

At a minimum, buy a X0D series and a battery grip. That will at least be 'big' enough to look the part.

 

[Paladin3]

I was a staff newspaper photographer in the Los Angeles area for 13 years. I&#8217;ve shot a lot of events and did my share of red carpet photos. You need gear that will allow you to shoot photos quickly, under any lighting conditions and without missing a beat. Nobody will wait for you to change lenses, focus or for your flash to recycle.

Get two bodies. The faster they can AF and the faster they shoot (FPS) the better. I&#8217;d go crop body if you want to save some money and get the most reach out of a zoom lens. Other than that don&#8217;t worry about which bodies they are. Also, one of the most overlooked features a professional shooter needs on a camera is a fast flash sync speed. Anything less than 1/250 is crap and to be avoided.

Get good fast glass: an 80-200/2.8 and a wide f/2.8 zoom like the 17-50/2.8 or similar. I&#8217;d go with one of the third party lens manufactures to save money. Avoid primes if you want the ability to shoot fast. Avoid (for now) the coveted 35mm or 50mm everyone says you MUST have. They are fantastically sharp lenses and great bang for the buck, but almost useless for making images on the run in tight situation where you don&#8217;t have the time or space to move or adjust. You could try to get away with slower variable aperture zooms, but how many pictures are you willing to miss waiting for the AF to lock or the flash to recycle because you are shooting at 5.6 instead of 2.8?

Get powerful strobes that tilt and swivel, one for each body. Either get a camera body that does flash wirelessly, or (more reliable in a crowd of shooters, IMHO) get an off camera sync cord so you can move your flash around. Get each flash an omni-bounce dome defuser and don&#8217;t waste money on any other flash gadget. The omni-bounce simulates a bare bulb for shooting indoors when you have walls and ceiling to bounce off of. Otherwise just get some white cardboard and a rubber band for a ghetto bounce card. Watch the shooters around you and you will see what they are doing, but most often, you will actually see them using direct strobe in a cluster shooting situation with a ton of other photogs. I sometimes use a stroboframe quick flip bracket so I can get the flash up a little higher to avoid red eye and push my shadows lower, and it lets me shoot vertical and flip the flash around so it is still over the lens and not off to the side. Again, watch the other shooters and ask them how they are shooting their flashes. It&#8217;s an art form all its own.

Flash batteries: I&#8217;ve always used the Quantum batteries to power my flash units, but that&#8217;s a lot of cash to drop. I really don&#8217;t think going with rechargeable NiMH AA batteries is that big of a sin, provided you have several sets, keep them charged and are careful not to mix the sets up. You&#8217;ll know when you get to the point where you are shooting so much, so fast that the NiMH can&#8217;t keep up.

BUY USED. The first and last brand new camera I bought was a Minolta X-370 for college in 1987. Since then I&#8217;ve bought almost every piece of gear I&#8217;ve personally owned used.

Since you are just starting you will have to look hard at your budget and shop around to see what pieces of gear you can get started with. Something like a single cheap body, a good flash and a kit 17-105 lens might be it. The most important thing to understand is what you need your gear to do vs. what it is able to do. Only then can you make informed buying decisions.

I'll add more if I think about it, if this isn't already TL/DR for you.

 

[JamesV]

I got the T3 about 2 months ago and love it. This is a hobby, so the T3 body and the kit lens (18-55) and a 55-250 IS zoom lens ran me $794. After a bag, sling strap, hurricane blower, and other items, I ended up around $925. Still no tripod yet; hard to spend $250 on a good one when I still want a nice macro lens.

I knew it was much more powerful than my old digital point and shoot, but had no idea just how much more powerful. I'm still struggling with the professional modes, in which you can set everything. It's easy to shoot on autofocus and get really good pictures, but it's hard to look at a scene and figure everything out on the fly in the manual modes - but results in possibly great (ie paid for) pictures.

So for me, the T3 is perfect. I'm learning, and didn't break the bank on something that may remain a hobby for me. Don't think buying expensive gear is going to make you a great photographer... there is alot to learn. Would you rather learn on an entry model and probably not make any money, but only spend around $1,000, or bet $2,000+ on something that may never come naturally to you, and something that might stay a hobby?

If I was you (and I'm assuming money is an issue to an extent), I'd hit up that pro friend of yours for an old DSLR he may be willing to lend you - learn the craft, and then buy your own.

 

[Syborg1211]

How good of friends are you with this pro photographer you'll be going out with? He should most likely have a spare camera or lens for you to borrow and see if you're really interested. Also, he should be able to give you advice on what to get. If he has a lot of lenses and stuff he doesn't use and would let you borrow, then I would base my choice of a body based on what brand he shoots with. Maybe he'd sell some stuff to you too.

 

[finbarqs]

I'm going to give you the best advice a pro photographer can give another aspiring photographer: Get Cheap. Get Cheap lenses.

Rest of the money, invest in post processing. i.e. Photoshop, Photoshop Lightroom, etc.

Unless you're shooting commercial work, you don't need top quality glass to give people a chance to pixel peep. Weddings and portraiture, as long as you can nail focus, then you can give the photos any type of treatment you would like.

That's the main difference between film and digital: Film, you send it off to a lab for them to do the "Photoshop" work. Digital, it's all you. That's why with good film (I personally like ektachrome VS -- good color saturation without destroying skin tones like Velvia does) you take your pics, send if off, and it comes back beautiful! R.I.P. Kodachrome

Also, what determines IQ? Are you talking about Sharpness? Dynamic Range? It's kind of hard to test a camera for it's dynamic when you are different lenses on them, which will determine the amount of contrast. By Definition, Dynamic Range is the amount of stops before you reach no detail in the highlights and shadows. Another word for this is "contrast". So having MORE dynamic range literally means you have less contrast at a given scene. So in a high contrast scene, if your camera (the sensor) is able to produce very low contrast scenes, then it has done its job properly!

Remember, the Key word here is "in a given scene" (which includes subjects). I'd be hard pressed to see if people can actually discern the differences between a camera that has "higher dynamic range" in a low contrast scene such as "A Cloudy Day on the Beach".

 

[blastingcap]

I'm going to give you the best advice a pro photographer can give another aspiring photographer: Get Cheap. Get Cheap lenses.

Rest of the money, invest in post processing. i.e. Photoshop, Photoshop Lightroom, etc.

Unless you're shooting commercial work, you don't need top quality glass to give people a chance to pixel peep. Weddings and portraiture, as long as you can nail focus, then you can give the photos any type of treatment you would like.

That's the main difference between film and digital: Film, you send it off to a lab for them to do the "Photoshop" work. Digital, it's all you. That's why with good film (I personally like ektachrome VS -- good color saturation without destroying skin tones like Velvia does) you take your pics, send if off, and it comes back beautiful! R.I.P. Kodachrome

Also, what determines IQ? Are you talking about Sharpness? Dynamic Range? It's kind of hard to test a camera for it's dynamic when you are different lenses on them, which will determine the amount of contrast. By Definition, Dynamic Range is the amount of stops before you reach no detail in the highlights and shadows. Another word for this is "contrast". So having MORE dynamic range literally means you have less contrast at a given scene. So in a high contrast scene, if your camera (the sensor) is able to produce very low contrast scenes, then it has done its job properly!

Remember, the Key word here is "in a given scene" (which includes subjects). I'd be hard pressed to see if people can actually discern the differences between a camera that has "higher dynamic range" in a low contrast scene such as "A Cloudy Day on the Beach".

You don't appreciate high DR until you don't have it. Having greater DR in a camera is a good thing because you can always squish it down in print or for the screen, but the reverse isn't true. Further, as a fan of post processing (presumably in RAW), you would probably agree that a camera with "excessive" DR allows you to push and pull and save what would have been a bad photo. Or expand a photo into a HDR-like effect. I have both a D5100 (great DR) to a G3 (mediocre DR) and the thing I miss most about the D5100 in post-processing landscape photos is the DR. It's less important for things like portraits, or, as you said, during low contrast scenes and cloudy days and such.

Anyway OP, listen to Paladin3 up there, but don't get carried away, either, if it's out of your budget. A good flash and a fast zoom (Paladin and I agree on something like an off-brand Sigma 17-50 OS) and a body with good flash controls will get you far.