First DSLR woo!

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
I have been looking for a basic DSLR for taking pics of my kids at sporting events and such. My old P&S camera is great for around the house shooting but lacked in range and speed.

I been hitting Ebay a lot trying to get one.

A few recommended teh Canon Rebel T3 as it's cheap and decent.

Well today i was talking to a buddy who owes me like $500 (bailed him out of jail like 6-9 years ago). He got it through newegg (guess he has an account)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...9SIA29P0X96545

$429 for the T3 and a bunch of junk.

woot First DSLR.

question though. is the lens 18-55mm good enough to take pictures 20-35 yards away? should i look at a better lens?

and is 16 gig big enough?
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
Take pictures of what?

And 16 GB should be plenty, unless you cannot download images for a couple of days or want to do longer videos.


Mainly for my kids in sports (gymnastics and TWD). Of course also for shots around the house and such.

i should be able to download daily. so good 16bg is enough
 

Berliner

Senior member
Nov 10, 2013
495
2
0
www.kamerahelden.de
You probably want a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens for taking sports pictures.

If that is not in your budget think about a 55-200mm. 55mm is just slightly closer than your eyes see.
 

iGas

Diamond Member
Feb 7, 2009
6,240
1
0
You probably want a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens for taking sports pictures.

If that is not in your budget think about a 55-200mm. 55mm is just slightly closer than your eyes see.
70-200mm f2.8 is a great suggestion, but it could be a bit steep for the OP. IMHO, the 135L f2 would be a great compromise lens or sell your blood for the 200L f2. Or, rent the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 OS Sport lens for a try.

The 55-200mm may not do for most gym, because the OP may have to shoot at ISO-3200 or greater to stop motion.
 
Last edited:

CuriousMike

Diamond Member
Feb 22, 2001
3,044
544
136
Mainly for my kids in sports (gymnastics and TWD). Of course also for shots around the house and such.

i should be able to download daily. so good 16bg is enough

55mm may be a bit short for those sports - at least you didn't say baseball.

Learn how to adjust your ISO since both of those sports are indoors.
 

CuriousMike

Diamond Member
Feb 22, 2001
3,044
544
136
While the 70-200 f2.8 is a great lens on Canikon, I think most "I just got my first $500 DSLR!" owners will shit a brick when they see how much a pro lens costs.


Learn how to use your ISO.
 

iGas

Diamond Member
Feb 7, 2009
6,240
1
0
question though. is the lens 18-55mm good enough to take pictures 20-35 yards away? should i look at a better lens?
You can always crop the image if you don't have a long telephoto. But, IMHO you will want to go early for a good seat that as close to the action as possible, so to use a shorter telephoto lens. It will cheaper on your pocket book, and you do not have to work out to use the massive long fast telephoto lenses.

1.6 APS-C sensor, and subject is 80' away = 300mm lens.
Subject at 55' away = 200mm.
Subject at 37' away = 135mm.
Subject at 27' away = 100mm.
 
Last edited:

elitejp

Golden Member
Jan 2, 2010
1,080
20
81
Also some of the 3rd party lenses are a great value for the money. If you really need the reach then the sigma 120-300 is a great choice and the new tamron 70-200 delivers quite well when comparing to the canon II version. But if 150mm is long enough then a used Canon 55-150 would be the best choice until you save up for a better lens. The thing about the 55-150 is that its a very common lens and one thats recommended for beginners./ Mainly because it allows you to get a good lens for cheap while giving yourself some time to learn what you need in a better lens. When your just starting out its hard to know what tool you need. But the good thing is that many people once they learn what they need in a lens will upgrade to a better tool leaving a market flooded with barely used 50-150. Then when you upgrade you wont lose much money if any at all.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
I had a SLR back in the err..90's but hell that was years ago took a photography class in high school. ..and ISO was film based LOL.

trouble is i can't remember shit..besides the girl i was partners with was hot and had big tits. ahh high school...

Elitejp that sounds like a great idea. I think i might do that.

I tried to get a kit whith both the 18-55 lens and a 75-300. Then my buddy made this offer. So i still have the $400 i had budgeted. I wasn't looking for a pro level camera. I read one article (and got advice on) the idea of getting a decent camera and getting better lens then buying a top of the line camera and using the lens that come with it.