Recommend a good camera?

I like the digital camera I have now, but it is a basic camera. I have always wanted a nice camera, with all the different lenses and such, because I love to take pictures. Any recommendations would be great. What brand would be best, what kind would take good pictures, and be good for someone just learning how to use all the fancy bells and whistles? Thanks.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2

I like Nikons. I have this one and think it's great.
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-Digital-...ds=nikon+d3200

I think Jinx's pics/vids always come out really nice. He's told me before he has a sony cybershot :gj:

Or sony powershot...? I cant remember lol. Its a sony though.

Jinx does have nice pics. Not sure if his is point and shoot or what. I really like the one Winwizard has. That's exactly what I had in mind.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2

There are so many on the market that to make a useful recommendation without a budget is hard. Most of the entry dslr bodies are good often the kit lenses are not. I usually would suggest a true macro lens but they are often in the 700-1200$ range so budget dependent. I like nikons personally and if you go that route one option is to get a used pro - semi pro level body as it will take older lens that opens a ton of doors. The d200 still holds it's own against the newer entry cameras and often can be found for 200-300$. A used manual macro will work fine on it and they are about the same. That is my 2 cents


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, if it means waiting and saving some money, I just want a good camera, that's going to last. And not have to buy another better one in a few years.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2

Meh, everyone goes for the Nikon route, and that's understandable. I've shot Nikon for many MANY years (D70, D200, D7000), but lately I've been on a Canon rage. The Nikon works well with high ISO situations, and I used it for that very purpose. With reptile photography, it's all about lighting and hitting it with good light or using natural light.

For a good introductory setup this is what I'd reccommend, it's going to cost around $1800, but the beauty is you can buy it piece by piece, or check craigs list for the lens and flash...

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...i_Digital.html
Canon T4i is a great little camera, that offers a lot of the features in the higher end cameras, but not as good of a focus system in some terms (hence the price cut from its far superior 7D and 60D big brother and sister). But it has a touch LCD pannel and the LCD screen can be flipped and rotated around to make odd shooting angles easy to work around. It also has GREAT HD video, which you may want in the long run. Can not go wrong with this body, but be warned the price is $850, and does not include a lens.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...USM_Macro.html
Best macro lens on the market for Canon that is not a bazzilion dollars. The only difference between this model and the next one up that is nearly twice the price is the fact that it lacks image stabalization and it does not have the Lord Red Ring around it to signify it as an L series (Lord series) lens. This lens will carry its weight, and retain resell values for years to come.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...acro_Ring.html
Cheapest alternative to a full blown light studio. This thing will produce astonishing images with ease. The price tag is quite high . . . but this flash was made for the lens above. You will see good results!

Ok, so that all may be a little bit too much for starting out, but it's a goal to head for in my thoughts. You can start out with the slightly older Canon T3i, and have fun learning with it, add in the macro lens next, and then a solid flash set up. That would reduce your cost a good bit, but also be like a payment plan as you add as you go. Other things you could look into would be mirrorless cameras. They fit the niche for those who want a DSLR style camera, but aren't ready to commit to the big camera, but still have some manual controls. I use the Nikon J1 for portable fun shoots and it works pretty good! Nikon just announced the J2 however, but even so, without adding a macro lens the macro on it is sub par and lighting is difficult to attain.

My two cents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reptileexperts

Meh, everyone goes for the Nikon route, and that's understandable. I've shot Nikon for many MANY years (D70, D200, D7000), but lately I've been on a Canon rage. The Nikon works well with high ISO situations, and I used it for that very purpose. With reptile photography, it's all about lighting and hitting it with good light or using natural light.

For a good introductory setup this is what I'd reccommend, it's going to cost around $1800, but the beauty is you can buy it piece by piece, or check craigs list for the lens and flash...

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...i_Digital.html
Canon T4i is a great little camera, that offers a lot of the features in the higher end cameras, but not as good of a focus system in some terms (hence the price cut from its far superior 7D and 60D big brother and sister). But it has a touch LCD pannel and the LCD screen can be flipped and rotated around to make odd shooting angles easy to work around. It also has GREAT HD video, which you may want in the long run. Can not go wrong with this body, but be warned the price is $850, and does not include a lens.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...USM_Macro.html
Best macro lens on the market for Canon that is not a bazzilion dollars. The only difference between this model and the next one up that is nearly twice the price is the fact that it lacks image stabalization and it does not have the Lord Red Ring around it to signify it as an L series (Lord series) lens. This lens will carry its weight, and retain resell values for years to come.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...acro_Ring.html
Cheapest alternative to a full blown light studio. This thing will produce astonishing images with ease. The price tag is quite high . . . but this flash was made for the lens above. You will see good results!

Ok, so that all may be a little bit too much for starting out, but it's a goal to head for in my thoughts. You can start out with the slightly older Canon T3i, and have fun learning with it, add in the macro lens next, and then a solid flash set up. That would reduce your cost a good bit, but also be like a payment plan as you add as you go. Other things you could look into would be mirrorless cameras. They fit the niche for those who want a DSLR style camera, but aren't ready to commit to the big camera, but still have some manual controls. I use the Nikon J1 for portable fun shoots and it works pretty good! Nikon just announced the J2 however, but even so, without adding a macro lens the macro on it is sub par and lighting is difficult to attain.

My two cents.

---

So I have been looking at the Canon T3 &T4. They were also recommend by someone else. Is the one lens that comes with it pretty much sufficient for everyday and snake photos? How often do you actually use the macro lens? I didn't see where you could set custom white balance on the T4. It didn't say anything about the white balance, where as the T3 did.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2

It will have custom WB, but you can also just shoot in Raw format which will allow you to just change your white balance in photoshop (lightroom) later on :-). The kit lens are junk ultimately, you can get a better lens for $120 by getting you a nifty 50, or $200 on getting the new pancake STE lens (highly rec. this route if you get the t4i as it will fully utilize it).

I use to use my macro lens quite a bit for all my work, but now I use my 17-40mm f4 L series glass for most of my work cause wide angle is quite fun. But I did pull out the macro set up in my light box yesterday. It's always a blast!

Also to save on flash money, you dont "need" a macro light, thats what you want to get up to, but you do need an external flash. 580ex ii is a great buy in and will last you a long time. But the new wireless one (for about 200 more) gives you commander and slave modes which help for a multi flash set up later on.

X2 for Nikon. Canon is a good brand as well.
I have a Nikon D3100 and it takes awesome photos.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Awhile back I decided to stop carrying my point and shoot in my purse because I found I was using my iPhone for "normal" pics. I also had a bulky DSLR I wanted to upgrade. I wanted to just have 1 camera that would take nice snake pics but also be small enough to take to the zoo or wherever. I opted for the Canon SX40 HS. It's what I would call a small DSLR. I'm by no means a pro but I know my way around a camera and this one takes nice enough shots on auto that I don't really have to muss with any of the other settings. Its small enough to throw in my purse (I do carry a large-ish purse) for day outings but has a long enough lens to satisfy that need. All in all I'm really happy with it.

Canons are fine the big issue with them is they change everything every model it seems they are on what the fourth or I it the fifth lens mount now? (nikon is on the second mount) and they make a ton of batteries. The flash system also changes frequently they do like to keep the consumer buying stuff. I still have and use the same 200 2.8 lens that was built the year I was born (1969) on my digital nikon. I have had canon gear and well got burned when they changed one of the lens mounts. Just bought a closeout pro camera to find the next week it was not going to mount any new lens at all. Just something to be aware of they change stuff all the time almost as bad as sony.

the macros the one linked is roughly the same as the macro zooms, I have shot with it and well it isn't a great lens if you are going that route buy the L glass one it is 1000x better. I still would suggest a used body canon or nikon and if you have budget issues look at the olympus they have great value for $ (not many accessories though)
Ring flash is all the rage now just like it was 25 years ago. They are ok (I own 3, nikon, sigma, and dynalite) but a straight TTL is more versatile and for 8$ a seriously awesome shooting space can be built.

http://ball-pythons.net/forums/showt...n-construction

canon hasn't changed in a while now, and with a new person coming to the hobby, the lens selection won't be an issue that they can't use a lens from 1970 they don't have anyway :-) not to troll, but that sounded like a true Nikoni ;-)

true but there was a screw mount the turning ring mount the bayonet mount the larger bayonet mount and the af mount and is there a new mount after that the eos mount? I think... I do like nikon it is true but i also teach photography and although Canon makes great gear the corporate attitude sucks. Have you ever upgraded and kept all your old batteries? nikon is still using the same one from the D100, D200, D300, D300S, D700, D50, D70, D70s, D80, D90. I have students shoot canons and upgrade the body and not be able to keep anything but the lens and even then every what ten to fourteen years they change the mount. I'd be concerned that they are planning a new one soon it is due based on the last 70 years. I think it is something to be aware of buying into a new system nikon or canon are both killer cameras and to be honest the differences are minimal. The issue I have with Canon is that when you plan on upgrading plan on new accessories as the track record is quite poor for longevity. It is a no win debate, both make great gear and both have ups and downs pick what feels right in your hand that matters more than anything else.

I have been doing quite a bit of reading on the two of these. And have been reading reviews and such. I am kind of on the fence. Honestly they both get tons of 5 star ratings with minimal to no complaints. I am kind of leaning towards the Canon now. Only one thing I was worried about is awb. Seems from one review, a loyal Canon customer had hoped the t4i would have better white balance than the t3i, but said it was the same. On a Nikon review, one guy said it had great wb. Which, I know, its the internet, taking it with a grain of salt. At any rate, even if the Canon isn't the same as the Nikon as far as wb, its still going to be a thousand times better than my cheap point and shoot. As far as Canon changing things, I'm not worried about that. I will be buying a camera and set up, then that should last me for years. It's going to be awhile before I get one, since I need to save up, so I have plenty of time to make up my mind! :). Thanks for all your input everyone.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2

Don't let the wb push you one direction or the other. You can change that 100% in postproduction when you shoot in raw. Awb is a terrible thing to begin with and should never be used unless you are shooting raw in which cause you can change the AWB with no loss of detail whatsoever.

Canon has the same battery for their series - much like Nikon keeps the same battery with their series, D70 and D200 are not the same battery, you can use a D70 battery in a D200, but not very well. D7000 started a NEW battery type for Nikon?? And the D4, lets see they are using an off the wall memory type that is forcing people to upgrade their memory cards?? Come on . . . at least canon stuck with dual compact flash with their professional line 1Dx. Don't hand me a AAA and tell me its a AA battery, I sold all of these cameras for 6 years, and studied the ins and outs. Now I shoot wildlife photographery on a semiprofessional level. I've kept up with the game, you can't blame canon for making their lines better IMO.

- - - Updated - - -

Should also be noted that Nikon changes their VR constantly downgrading the value of older lens. Canon rarely upgrades the IS on their higher lenses, this year was the introduction of IS ii to a lot of the staple line ups (500 f4, 600 f4, 70-200f2.8). And while this caused a significant price increase in the line, the older lens value ALSO went up. This has not been the case previously with nikon. Canon glass holds value VERY well.

Nikon has been playing the canon game of changing up stuff I own a pair of d700 and a d3x I like them ultimately it doesn't really matter they are both great systems I simply don't like the fussy canon bits I mean the hot shoe and third party syncs is a nightmare stupid recessed pan is brain dead.

Awb is not a selling point. I am a pro and have been for ages. I so rarely use it that I don't recall when if you are shooting snakes the light is consistent no need to use auto just pick what seems best and batch correct it later if it proves to be off. Custom white balance is more critical. Auto is only useful where there is no time to change it and there is huge differences in light colour.

Used makes a lot of sense the digital camera depreciate fast and far. Let someone else take the hit. Make a list of what you want the camera to do and what you would like it to. Ignore the rest if it shoots video but you never use that why pay extra for that feature? Megapixel is not the big be all end all. If for example were shooting for a web site and made occasional prints of a album size there is no need for much more than 6 or 8 mp having more means bigger files and more storage and faster processing power. No need to have tons more than you will use.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

RE landscape I am surprised you are not shooting with an older fuji the S2,3,5 are perfect landscape wedding formal cameras if there is a camera on the market with a longer d-range I have never met it. I kept all of the S series ones I owned they are a one trick pony but it is one hell of a trick. It smokes the 5d for range four or five stops more hight light info. Hell it beats the phase one p65 in range too. It is crazy I set mine to over expose everything one stop I get less noise in the shadows and it so rarely blows out highlights that who cares. I wish any Nikon could say that! Oh well to each his own. I don't trust canon not to change something to make a quick buck. That are on the goth lens mount system after all. I really enjoyed buying a first pro camera and 3 months later discovering it was discontinued and all the old lenses with it. None of the new lenses would fit on and warrantee on the less than a year old when they determined a lens was defective was to send a new not comparable replacement. I sold the whole works and bought a Nikon f2 and 3 lenses that I still use today.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

White balance was just something I had a problem with on my point and shoot. I'm sure no matter which way I go, will be a thousand times better.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2

Point and shoots do poor WB :-) However, even they can be modified when used properly. My old pocket Canon SD600 could do WB Really well. I used it for some concert shots and set white balance by putting a piece of white paper on the stage and used my flash to take a picture in order to "set white balance" manually. Once the show started I was able to get really good and balanced shots thanks to this feature. Since post production WB is horrible with jpeg compressed files, it is a must to get it right in camera the first time.

If you want a cheap good step up just go with a Canon T3i, then pick up a nifty 50 (50mm f2.8). It will be around 80mm effective focus length with the capability to focus down to around 8 inches or so I believe (from the sensor so take off 2-3 inches for camera / lens stuff). This entire set up may cost you 600, next investment would be a good but cheap flash. Speedlight 430 EX I belive is the model number, not looking at it currently. But it's less than 300 has decent output especially for close range, so you'll be able to do some cool stuff with it and your nifty fifty without too many issues. Will still do well for some collection vids and what not as well.

And for a comparison of comparible nikons, Canon t4i > Nikon D5100 > Canon t3i (depending on use)

Cheers

2nd the used bits, but I'd buy used in person and try and get a shutter count as well.

As far as the Fuji S series, its a great sensor and still had the convienience for Nikon lenses, but I never really got into the Fuji side of the industry. . . That being said, isn't the Fuji S5 Pro just a D200 with a fuji sensor and logo?

Kinda, a D200, but slower a lot slower, but the dynamic range is way more, heck more than everything really. It is like HDR every frame with out doing HDR and still looking real. I know a number of people whom would shoot raw process one for the dark sky and one normal and merge them. It looks so much like extreme hdr that it makes not diff. DXO claims it is just under 14 stops texture to texture. I could never tell as my studio I can only get 12 and it would hold shadow and highlight using a dynalight 1000 bare head 24 inches from a model and nothing else. The studio is small enough (18 feet wide) that there is enough fill I only get 12 and it holds all that. The D200 I have is maybe 10 (dxo says 11 but I'd say that is pushing it) The D700 is better but maybe 12 but I'd say 11 is more accurate. The fujis from the 2 up have the same trick about the only really good thing they do but it is a amazing heart stopping trick. They also do real IR and UV off the shelf if that is of interest, the S2IR is quite amazing as well they get serious cash for them even now... the last one I saw was well used and sold at $1000 a year old or so for a 10 year old digital that was 1200 new that is unheard of.