Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

Author Topic: if u only had $2000  (Read 9128 times)

Dave Pluimer

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 166
    • Dave Pluimer Photography
Re: if u only had $2000
« Reply #20 on: May 29, 2014, 01:16:21 pm »

Used Canon 1D Mk II N for $600 and a used 24-70 f/2.8 L.

The camera is a great starter - forces you to learn manual; fantastic AF, enough MP, between FF and APS-C, takes SD and CF, weather proof.

She could turn around and sell it and recoup 80%+ of her $$$ on a better body.

The downsides are weight and high ISO performance. Otherwise, it's a solid kit. And, she could live with that lens for a long time.
Logged

Misirlou

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 711
    • http://
Re: if u only had $2000
« Reply #21 on: May 29, 2014, 05:47:15 pm »

Yeah, I'd really want to know what kind of personality she has, and specifically, what sort of photos entrance her right now. I started out as a St. Ansel disciple, but I know others who were excited by streets, sports, or portraits (and of course a few adolescent boys who just wanted to get chicks naked - see electric guitar web sites for further detail).

I she sticks with it, she could try any or all those paths, but if she already has some inclination in a particular direction, she should get what makes sense for that type of shooting. That will encourage her to persevere.

For example, if I came across a kid who wanted to make huge B&W landscape prints, I'd have them get a Sigma DPX Merrill. If they seemed really interested in sports, it would be a mainstream DSLR. If they had no idea at all, I'd be tempted to recommend M43.

I love reading about the way this question was answered 50 years ago. Pretty often, you'd hand a kid a Speed Graphic and a single film holder, and just say "F8 and be there."
Logged

chez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2393
Re: if u only had $2000
« Reply #22 on: May 30, 2014, 09:33:01 am »

Used Canon 1D Mk II N for $600 and a used 24-70 f/2.8 L.

The camera is a great starter - forces you to learn manual; fantastic AF, enough MP, between FF and APS-C, takes SD and CF, weather proof.

She could turn around and sell it and recoup 80%+ of her $$$ on a better body.

The downsides are weight and high ISO performance. Otherwise, it's a solid kit. And, she could live with that lens for a long time.

I think the weight combination of the 1d2n and 24-70 will be a big turnoff for a newbe. I'd go the mirrorless route as I did with my daughter.
Logged

Michael N. Meyer

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 51
    • Michael Nathaniel Meyer Freelance
Re: if u only had $2000
« Reply #23 on: May 30, 2014, 11:38:55 am »

Having taught classes for youth and adults, I'd keep everything as simple as possible. Spending the entire $2K right away is neither necessary nor advisable.

My recommendation would be a Fuji X-E1 plus a 35mm f1.4 lens and socking the rest of the budget away for later. The camera has easy to set aperture and shutter speed, is light and compact and offers good image quality. It would be a good learning tool and right now is priced right. If your niece decides she needs something wider or longer or a zoom, those options are all available in the system. If she later decides a tripod or a studio light would be useful there's room left in the budget for that, too. I'm basing this on the assumption that your niece is young, doesn't have a clear photographic need in mind and isn't looking to turn photography into a profession. Keeping everything simple means keeping it fun, too.

-m

 

Gulag

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 336
Re: if u only had $2000
« Reply #24 on: June 11, 2014, 03:29:11 am »

I recently spent $350 for a used Nikon D5100 (16MP/supporting 14-bit RAW) that had about 1000 shutter clicks along with the kit lens 18-55VR and two batteries for a ten-year-old.  Later added a used Nikon 35 1.8G DX prime lens and SB-600 speedlight for another $250.  For $600, that's a bargain because the combo - the camera and the kit lens -  produces superb image quality and its small size and light weight are perfect for a young boy. I am really impressed.

Logged
"Photography is our exorcism. Primitive society had its masks, bourgeois society its mirrors. We have our images."

Jean Baudrillard

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13866
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: if u only had $2000
« Reply #25 on: June 11, 2014, 10:24:33 am »

I 'd get a Sony a7 or a Nikon D7100.

Cheers,
Bernard

Ajoy Roy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 117
Re: if u only had $2000
« Reply #26 on: June 12, 2014, 12:35:15 am »

I 'd get a Sony a7 or a Nikon D7100.

Cheers,
Bernard

I would get a D610.
Logged
Ajoy Roy, image processing

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13866
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: if u only had $2000
« Reply #27 on: June 12, 2014, 04:57:30 am »

I would get a D610.

Hum... this leaves very little money for the lens(es), doesn't it?

Cheers,
Bernard

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17683
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: if u only had $2000
« Reply #28 on: June 12, 2014, 09:34:21 am »

If anyone else intends to start their post with "I'd get...," I suggest they address it to Santa Claus. North Pole. ;)

bcooter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1516
Re: if u only had $2000
« Reply #29 on: June 12, 2014, 03:19:41 pm »


I have a niece wanting to start in the world of photography and has $2k to spend.




There is not a photographer alive that wouldn't improve their art and commerce by NOT upgrading their equipment at every turn.

These forums, all camera forums and blogs have a lot of good useful content, but are essentially advertising carriers for the camera equipment industry and are usually gear centric in content and readership.

To learn photography in any genre, means putting the most interesting subject possible in front of your lens and the latest 36mpx camera won't change a boring subject, ugly lighting, or simple composition.

Knowing this, all you niece needs is three things, a camera, a lens and a tripod and the largest (not in megapixels but format) sensor you can afford.

Maybe a fourth, a decent flash that will mount off camera, or a continuous light like a 500 watt fresnel.

A larger format sensor like a FF canon gives you the opportunity to learn to move depth of field in the learning process.

I'd Canon like the original 5d or a 1ds because they're very inexpensive and the files will open in 6 year old software and those bodies can be bought for $500 to $600.

(FF Nikons came on the scene later, so a D3 or D700 is twice the price, so that's why I mention Canon).

In regards to lenses, most modern lenses, even on the low end are excellent. A 50mm 1.8 will cover most of what anyone would shoot and sells for $200.

If she buys a zoom, treat it as a prime.  survey the scene,  then think what lens you would need, say a 35 or a 75 and then set the lens at that focal length and gaffer tape it down so you don't start hunting.

This should put the total outlay to $1200 and allow for less stress, more thought and maybe even time to think about the image  . . . and learn.

To me the tripod is the most important as it forces the novice to learn to previsualize the photograph rather than just shoot and hope.

Also producing sharp images with a tripod is much easier and an in focus 11 mpx photograph has twice the visual detail of a out of focus 40mpx camera.

Once the image is based out, you can always remove the camera from the tripod and find more interesting angles, but there is a difference between making a photograph and taking a photograph.  

If taking a photograph is a goal, then a mobile phone is fine, if making a photograph is the plan then a older ff 35mm camera, a lens a tripod and a light will go a long way to learning how to really produce a photograph.

Study the masters as photography really is a new art, so what was produced 60 years ago is viable today.

Avedon, Art Kane, Bert Stern,  Ansel Adams, Weston, the list is long, will go a long way to giving an aspiring student a base.

But don't discount mobile phone photography.   Some beautiful work is being produced by the camera in a pocket, and the camera you have at the best moment, is the best camera.

IMO

BC
« Last Edit: June 13, 2014, 05:51:21 am by bcooter »
Logged

aizan

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20
Re: if u only had $2000
« Reply #30 on: June 13, 2014, 10:44:18 am »

are used cameras ok?

canon 5d mkii or canon 6d with 50/1.4.

fuji x100s
fuji x-pro1 or fuji x-t1 with 35/1.4.

sony rx10
sony a6000 with 35/1.8.
Logged

BFoto

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 239
    • Brad's blog
Re: if u only had $2000
« Reply #31 on: June 16, 2014, 02:09:30 am »

Sorry, been away a while. I did read this briefly a week or so ago and found all perspectives to be quite valid. I share everyone's different point of view, in fact that why I asked.

I certainly can't respond to all the differing of opinions, actually i'de rather not incite more debate, suffice to say after she felt the weight on my 5D and associated lenses, size was an issue. Then I lent her my Panasonic GF1 with 20mm pancake and she loved it.

So, she went something in between the 2 and has a new Fuji XE2 + 18-55 mm lens, good lightweight tripod and is off exploring the Melbourne streets.

I appreciate the advice and have still encouraged her to join the forums - knowing that not all of you are industry lobbyists!

David Eichler

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 784
    • San Francisco Architectural and Interior Photographer
Re: if u only had $2000
« Reply #32 on: June 16, 2014, 06:29:13 pm »

Sorry, been away a while. I did read this briefly a week or so ago and found all perspectives to be quite valid. I share everyone's different point of view, in fact that why I asked.

I certainly can't respond to all the differing of opinions, actually i'de rather not incite more debate, suffice to say after she felt the weight on my 5D and associated lenses, size was an issue. Then I lent her my Panasonic GF1 with 20mm pancake and she loved it.

So, she went something in between the 2 and has a new Fuji XE2 + 18-55 mm lens, good lightweight tripod and is off exploring the Melbourne streets.

I appreciate the advice and have still encouraged her to join the forums - knowing that not all of you are industry lobbyists!



Seems like a nice set up to start and. Fuji is quality equipment and there is a decent range of lenses available. So, this is not only beginner equipment. It could very well serve for long term use.
Logged

zuitomedia

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17
Re: if u only had $2000
« Reply #33 on: June 17, 2014, 11:22:19 am »

I would buy a used 5d2 and a 50 1.4 and whatever speedlight i could get with the change.
Logged

Philmar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 411
  • Office drone by day - Photoenthusiast on weekends
    • https://www.flickr.com/photos/phil_marion/albums
Re: if u only had $2000
« Reply #34 on: June 17, 2014, 04:38:04 pm »

One really needs to know more about the photographic likes, desires and goals of the camera's owner.

If she is anything like my wife then the best advice I can give is buy something in purple or fuschia  ;D
For the wife I'd suggest a $100 P&S with a $1900 Louis Vuitton camera case.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2014, 05:01:47 pm by Philmar »
Logged

maddogmurph

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1073
    • Maddog's Photography
Re: if u only had $2000
« Reply #35 on: August 11, 2014, 05:25:53 pm »

One really needs to know more about the photographic likes, desires and goals of the camera's owner.

If she is anything like my wife then the best advice I can give is buy something in purple or fuschia  ;D
For the wife I'd suggest a $100 P&S with a $1900 Louis Vuitton camera case.

This was the best advice in the lot...
Logged
Maddog Murph
www.depictionsofbeauty.com
Mostly here for constructive feedback.

trevarthan

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 136
Re: if u only had $2000
« Reply #36 on: August 11, 2014, 08:32:59 pm »

I'd buy a nice f1.4 50mm prime full frame lens ($500 new). I'd also buy a cheap f2.8 24mm prime. Buy a cheap body and tripod and Lightroom. Whatever is left goes toward whatever.
Logged

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: if u only had $2000
« Reply #37 on: August 12, 2014, 12:02:45 am »


There is not a photographer alive that wouldn't improve their art and commerce by NOT upgrading their equipment at every turn.


J,

 I am going to frame this and post it in my office.

Edmund
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13866
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: if u only had $2000
« Reply #38 on: August 12, 2014, 12:48:38 am »

I am going to frame this and post it in my office.

I guess it will have come too late for the DP3m...  ;D

Cheers,
Bernard

melchiorpavone

  • Guest
Re: if u only had $2000
« Reply #39 on: August 31, 2014, 09:18:35 pm »

I have a canon 1d and 5d with lots of L glass. Havent needed 'new' so have only kept a glancing eye on the latest and greatest.

I have a niece wanting to start in the world of photography and has $2k to spend.

I have emphasised the need to spend more on better glass with a lower end body.

If u only had $2k, what would you buy today?


Older (used) full-frame stuff and basic lenses.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2014, 09:25:04 pm by melchiorpavone »
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up