Welcome to the IHoP v.2

[topgun 262]

Or something similar.  I have no desire to lug a body and two lenses around for general photo shots, if photography was still a hobby of mine, sure, but it isn't anymore and I've got enough gadgets that I don't need to add to the pile.  

[MKader17 332]

We have a Canon PowerShot that we rarely use because I'll just use my phone camera.

I fell like the quality of pictures of a simple DSLR on auto with a kit lens is so much more amazing than a simple P&S.

I want to learn to be better with a camera, and feel like I can take the typical Sean approach, buy used, and if I don't really stick with it, I can sell it and lose little to nothing.

[topgun 262]

How new is your Canon powershot, there is a big difference in an older 200$ P&S vs a new 400-500$ P&S.  

That being said a used body with a good 50mm lens would be a great starting point. 

[dem beats 1,223]

3 hours ago, MKader17 said:

A camera is quickly moving up the priority list as the W and I are planning to start our family.

Looks like I could get into the game around $500.

Not to Hijack Seth's camera talk, but any suggestions? Kid stuff will be first priority with landscapes being second priority.

Nice point and shoot or call phone is fine for $500.

[dem beats 1,223]

I $500 P&S would probably destroy a $500 DSLR and lens.

 

Seriously.

 

 

[sandt38 448]

9 hours ago, ///M5 said:

Also, don't succumb to thinking something like the Tamron 18-270 is a good idea.  It blows kit lenses out of the water, but sucks donkey dick.  And yes, I own one.  Thought it was a great idea initially.

Steering clear of the Tamrons. I have read bad reviews from customers. I looked at the kits on Amazon and decided that is not really the type of kit I want. Most include a shit ton of extras, but according to the reviews the stuff is junk. Tamrons seem to be common in these kits.

What I am looking at are with factory lenses. Sure, I get that I will need to get better lenses eventually. Playing with my aperture and F-stops are kind of what I want to learn.

I am not totally ignorant to photography, but I know enough to know that I need to play to figure it all out. I don't even know enough to be dangerous, yet.

I am not rushing into this. I am taking my time before jumping in. So please, offer insight. I am listening.

[topgun 262]

3 hours ago, MKader17 said:

I want to learn to be better with a camera,

 

Oh, rule 1 is think before pushing the shutter button.  

Rule 2, see rule 1.

Rule 3, pay attention to backgrounds.

See instant improvement in your photos. 

[dem beats 1,223]

Also, take pictures of titties.

 

That is instant better pictures!

[///M5 2,833]

There are some really good Tamron lenses, but image quality and super zoom is an oxymoron.

[///M5 2,833]

$500 is mirrorless range.  Point and shoot cameras are pretty much useless.

 

[Penguin4x4 1,761]

[MKader17 332]

9 hours ago, ///M5 said:

$500 is mirrorless range.  Point and shoot cameras are pretty much useless.

 

Would $500 be to low for a body and prime and then I could grab a zoom later?

It seems like if I can get a 40D in the $180 range, I could get a descent lens for $220.

[///M5 2,833]

4 minutes ago, MKader17 said:

Would $500 be to low for a body and prime and then I could grab a zoom later?

It seems like if I can get a 40D in the $180 range, I could get a descent lens for $220.

Yes.  28mm 2.8 is $150, 50mm 1.4 is $330, 85mm 1.8 is $350 -> all new.  Those are all harder to source used, but it does happen.

I said Mirrorless on your end because of the children comment.  You probably want integrated video as well...of course, that can come as an upgrade later.

[///M5 2,833]

There are also good Sigma & Tamron primes, but they tend to be more money.

For more reach, Canon does have a great 135 f/2 but really once in that range I'd actually grab the zoom.  The 70-200 they have is without compare and definitely one of the strongest reasons to own a Canon.

 

[///M5 2,833]

A 40D with a 70-200 will take some SIC pictures

[dem beats 1,223]

Pros literally left Nikon just for the 70-200 isii.

 

Dont think I'm that picky. Having purchased into a system now, but I also don't rely on photos for my main income.

[Penguin4x4 1,761]

pucking KANGAROO

 

 

[Penguin4x4 1,761]

Uh oh, somebody forgot to pay the bill

[sandt38 448]

11 hours ago, ///M5 said:

There are also good Sigma & Tamron primes, but they tend to be more money.

For more reach, Canon does have a great 135 f/2 but really once in that range I'd actually grab the zoom.  The 70-200 they have is without compare and definitely one of the strongest reasons to own a Canon.

 

Sure, if I want to spend 2 grand for glass. Not worth it to me at all.

Even if Carmen Electra, Kate Upton, et al offered to give me 30 minutes to take all the nude photos in any pose I wanted to I still couldn't justify that kind of money.

[Penguin4x4 1,761]

[Penguin4x4 1,761]

[dem beats 1,223]

It won't be 2 grand when you are ready to buy it.

 

Either way, I just ran to a shop and held all of them. Nikon is the way to go for low and DSLR.  It's better for your needs. Especially if you are shooting landscapes.

 

 

However what you should buy is the Olympus mirrorless system.  It's nonsense. The optics are good and the images are razorpblade sharp.  I'll get the model number for ya a bit later.  

It destroys anything close in price.  Destroys...... Unless you Will look at Sony. But even then the Sony is not as good.  If you care about nonsense sharp images that will be easy to get and features, size, cost, then this is it buddy.  They are an optics company really their glass is good and a converter will let you use other brands.

[Godsmack 361]

On the Nikon vs Canon debate I will chime in here. After shooting Fort Rock this past weekend the pit was mixed. 1/4 people using mirrorless, P&S or cell phnes (which were listed as a strict NO on the release). The other 3/4 was split pretty evenly between Nikon and Canon with a few Sony's in there as well. When comparing daytime shots with a Canon user shooting a 70-200 and my Nikon D750 with a 70-200 as well, the quality of the shots were nearly identical. Difference being I was manually focusing, he was using the auto focus.  Night time, especially when doused in red lights, the Canon's AF was able to blow my Nikon to shit.  

 

I'll stick with my Nikon, purchase the 70-200 VRII to use, and simply use the AF feature next time. 

 

Keep in mind this is like the Chevy vs Ford, Budweiser vs Coors, Red vs Blue debates. Both sides bring a lot to the table, and neither is wrong. It all comes down to preference and what YOU experience.

 

J

[///M5 2,833]

I will also restate the mirrorless.  If you won't buy serious glass the only reason to buy a DSLR is the viewfinder.  If you've never used one though you won't miss it.  

[///M5 2,833]

Other than that you should lay out your real budget and then find lenses that fit in it and see what body you are left with.  Decide if that is okay feature wise and bam.