Hello everyone! My name is Chris, I am new to the forum.
Photography has always been an interest of mine, but Iv never really got the chance to really pursue that interest. Appreciating nature is a huge passion of mine and when I saw pictures of nature online I was awe struck and realized that I was photography bound, its not even a choice for me... hahah
My question is what is a good beginner camera for someone who wants to take pictures of nature ( birdwatching, landscapes, detailed textures of plants, animals, ect). I'm guessing a camera fit for taking decent pictures of nature doesn't come cheap, but what would the cheapest camera thats decent enough for the needs of nature picture taking be?
This is what I was thinking as my starting point...
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Powershot-SX10IS-Digital-Stabilized/dp/B001G5ZTZO/ref=dp_ob_title_ce
I would be willing to go higher in price for better quality,
Thank you very much for any help in advance
My recommendation would be to start with an entry level DSLR rather than a superzoom digicam. If you're serious about nature photography, you're going to upgrade to an SLR eventually anyhow. If cost is an obstacle, buy a used one. A Canon Rebel or a Nikon Dxx will suit your purposes. These cameras are quite capable. Your biggest challenge will be selecting and acquiring the lenses you will need to suit your style and genre of photography.
That camera would be "decent enough" to learn on and you'll certainly get good pictures with it, but it'd really be worth your while to spend more money and get an entry-level dSLR for the added versatility. Given the variety of stuff you want to photograph, you'll want the ability to swap out lenses and filters. Something like a Nikon D60 (and whatever Canon's current equivalent is) are more expensive, but they're good cameras for people new to photography.
Posted by David Bostedo on April 21, 2009 at 7:46 PM
Chris - If you're not certain that you're going to "stick" with photography, I think a superzoom would be a fine choice. (And the SX10 is supposed to be a good one.) It will let you shoot in many different situations and many focal lengths without having to buy several lenses. It will let you learn in an easy manner, and perhaps figure out if you like wildlife, landscape, macro, or some other specific genre.
However, you said that photography has always been an interest. Enough to know that you're going to have this hobby for a while, and that you'll frequent forums like this and take lots of pics, and stick with it? If that's the case, definitely go for an entry level SLR.
As far as which one, they're all very good anymore and the main consideration for most people are particular features, and lenses especially. For most people, that means Nikon or Canon since they have by far the biggest selection of lenses. For me, personally, since I knew more about what I wanted (in body IS, zoom lenses, good live view, flip and twist screens) I bought an Olympus. But I started with a Canon superzoom, and feel like it was a good path for me.
I cant find how far it will zoom though, would getting this camera require me to buy a separate lens or can I use it as is and get a better one later?
Posted by Dan Borzynski on April 21, 2009 at 8:47 PM
That camera combination is a good starting point. The lens is fairly good, especially as a starting lens. Its 35 mm film equivalent is about 30mm to 85 mm, which is fairly short (0.5x to 1.5 x), while your first camera is 28mm to 560 mm (0.5x to 11x). For comparison, a 50 mm lens is supposed to be about 1x, about what your eyes will usefully see when looking straight forward. The 20x on the lens refers to 560/28 = 20. On your second camera, it is 55/18 = 3x.
The photographer in me says to get the second choice, the Rebel. There is more long term flexibility and potential for growth. That particular lens will work well for general family shooting, landscapes, larger wildlife in context and some closeups as well. Birds, no. Headshots of deer in the field, no. Headshots of mosquitos, no. The first camera can probably get the deer and birds, with some patience, work and luck. Neither will get the mosquito headshot. You could extend the range of the camera by adding something like this lens
It is probably comparable to the kit lens that comes with the Rebel and will give you approximately the same focal length range of the first camera.
With the Rebel, you can buy additional lenses to cover the missing shots. A longer telephoto lens (200mm to 500 mm) will let you get the birds and deer (with patience, a bit lens work and a bit less luck), but there are the costs in getting those lenses. A second type of lens called a macro lens will let you get the mosquito headshot. But it is more money, even from third party manufacturers such as Sigma (probably the best of the third party companies), Tokina and Tamron.
Both camera options are pretty good. I don't think there is a "wrong" choice, but it is possible that one of the two may not be the right choice, if that makes any sense. Here are the two main questions I have for you to answer to yourself: How committed do you think you are and how much do you want to spend?
One word of advice about the actual purchase, whatever choice you make. Research the company you are planning to purchase from. There are a lot of truly slimy companies out there. Actually, slimy is a far too tactful description. The link I gave to B&H is good. I'd be okay buying through Amazon, if they are the ones handling the transaction. If they are sending you to a third party store like in the first camera choice, RESEARCH THE COMPANY!! B&H, Adorama (their phone sales people do match the NY'er reputation for rudeness, although they are honest), KEH for used gear, and Midwest Photo are all good.
"Both camera options are pretty good. I don't think there is a "wrong" choice, but it is possible that one of the two may not be the right choice, if that makes any sense. Here are the two main questions I have for you to answer to yourself: How committed do you think you are and how much do you want to spend?"
Well I am absolutely sure that this will be a life long and more likely then not quite frequent hobby of mine. I am under the impression that getting the SLR choice is a better one for me, since I will be able to build on to it when I become more experienced. I would very much like to get a camera that will be able to get shots of birds and head shots of deer first but if I cannot I think I will settle for the Canon Rebel XS 10.1MP Digital SLR. That camera is on sale for 500, I would be willing to spend about up to 600 if I am able to get a similar quality camera with a better lens for those close up bird shots and such.
Unfortunately, photography can be an expensive hobby. For wildlife, you are going to want a minimum of a 300mm lens. The best telephoto lenses start at more than $1000 and go up from there, way up. The 18-55 kit lens doesn't have a great reputation - it's cheap. Buy the body only, without the kit lens, and put that $100 towards a better lens. Canon's 300mm f4L lens is an excellent choice but perhaps way over your budget. The Canon 70-300 offers versatility at a more affordable price. Teleconverters are a way of extending your focal length for a reasonable cost. They generally work better with primes than with zooms. Teleconverters may not be compatible with some lenses. Check the compatibility before you buy. Also, with some lenses and some cameras, you may lose autofocus cpability if you use a teleconverter, especially a 2xTC. The independent lens manufacturers (Sigma, Tamron, Tokina) offer lenses at lower prices, and often at comparable quality to the camera makers' counterparts. In general, there is a relationship between price and quality. A $300 lens is unlikely to be as good a lens as a $1300 lens. Read reviews. Consider buying used gear to save money. And remember, digital cameras get obsolete pretty quickly - a good lens can serve you well for a long time.
Posted by Kurt Budde on April 22, 2009 at 12:10 AM
Since no one has said it..
Nothing, and I mean nothing, will improve and complement your photography more than a good tripod. It is absolutely essential for nature photography.
Posted by Paul DeCesare on April 22, 2009 at 12:11 AM
Chris, exactly what I was going to suggest, the Rebel Xsi, best feature for the buck. 12MP, big LCD, faster DIGIC III processor and LiveView,helpful for pre-focusing on a branch, etc. You can buy the body only, or if you want, get the kit with the 18-55mm... good for shooting your kids' birthday parties, etc.
There's a good rebate on SanDisk SD Cards at Beach Camera.
As far as the Sigma, don't go for the cheaper non-APO 70-300mm that you found on Amazon, the one that Dan listed is the APO version, much better glass. At the end of the day, it's the lens quality that can have the biggest impact on your image quality. Here it is on Amazon.
The Xsi and the Sigma APO 70-300mm is a fine setup to get you going.
And YES, Kurt is right! A good tripod is essential. Something like this is a decent start.
Posted by Steve Sieren on April 22, 2009 at 1:03 AM
I too agree that going with a DSLR is the way to go if you want to get into nature photography. The Rebel XS you mention in your post would probably do just fine and will give you a good tool to learn a lot of the craft of photography. The lens it comes with is a wide angle to "normal" zoom. This is a kit setup which will save you a few dollars but is only useful if that's the focal length range you want.
The Rebel uses interchangeable lenses so there's a wide variety of choices available to you. You might consider this kit plus a lens like the 70-300 IS (Image Stabilized) to give you a good range from wide angle (18mm) to telephoto (300mm). That way you'd be set up to get started with landscapes as well as a fair bit of nature photography. Eventually if you want to specialize in areas like macro and/or birds you'll probably want to look at more specialized lenses (and $$$) but to get started this setup should work well for you without breaking the bank.
I want to add that if you look in the various galleries you'll see that most of us who post here list the lenses and tech data of the various photos. For birds (which is my primary interest) a 500mm lens is pretty standard for many of us but these lenses are big, heavy (about 8 pounds) and very expensive (thousands of $$). Similarly if macro is what excites you again there are specialized lenses that are excellent but also spendy. Photography is not the cheapest hobby around so you might bear that in mind. And don't forget there is a large used equipment market that can get you into the specialized equipment at a considerable savings.
That said, it sounds like you're pretty new to all this so you might do best to start with a Rebel and a couple of lenses and use them to learn about photography and to get a feel for the subject matter that works best for you. If you're like many of us your interests and gear preferences will change over time and with experience and you'll end up replacing cameras and lenses a few times before you settle into a particular area.
Chris, another thing I've not seen mentioned yet is that with any entry level DSLR (which is probably what you will get due to cost) you will get a "boost" of either 1.5 or 1.6 crop factor for any lens you use. Without going into gory detail about what a crop factor really is, for all intents and purposes it is as if you have a teleconverter on the lens. So a 100mm lens acts like a 150mm lens (Canon 1.6 crop factor) or 150mm lens with a 1.5. So a 70-300mm lens actually performs as a 112-480mm lens. Keep this in mind when making lens decisions.
As to other things, get over Amazon and get your gear from a CAMERA vendor. B&H is the gold standard that all compare themselves to. Their prices warranties and service are all top notch BUT, there are others that are good. I've dealt with Hunt's Photo Video, MIdwest and Adorama and they all have always treated me well also with price, delivery and service.
Finally, I would echo the sentiment to buy Canon or Nikon. I use Canon and think it's the best but that is a very subjective thing that you can hear argued forever. Others are good no doubt My rationale for Canon or Nikon is this: they are no question high quality, they have the largest selection of bodies, lenses and accessories, they give you the ability to grow your system as you do and you will have most in common with other users for additional questions or advice. Good luck.
Chris come to the dark side, but seriously I think the rebel would be a great starting DSLR. I would reccomend the first lens you get for wildlife and nature should be between 18-250mm which was my first lens from tamron and I haven't regretted it except that time in the museum. I also would reccomend a uv filter to keep your lens safe from dust and sratches. another great first filter is a circular polarizer which really brings out the colors. Also I by my lenses from Amazon and my camera from B and H and I have to say two great companies. Come to the Dark side young padowan, come. hahahhahaha.
Sound like a good start for nature? Think the lens will suffice for reasonable close ups? I don't expect getting detailed shots of anything to far away that a professional might be able to, maybe a close up of a bird on a close by tree, somewhat crisp landscapes, ect.
BTW, would any of you recommend online stores other then amazon? I would like to compare some prices but there's sooo many shady sites I've come across, Id rather ask people here and not risk it haha
Keep in mind that a 75-300mm lens isn't going to be much use for landscapes, which you mentioned you were also interested in. Look for something with around 18mm on the wider end (or less).
You're probably not going to find one lens that's great for everything, so if you're more interested in wildlife, birds, and other intimate scenes, then go with something like the 75-300, but if you're more interested in landscapes and the big picture, something like an 18-55mm will be much more useful.
Thank you. I apologize for all the questions, I know amateur questions can get pretty redundant haha.
For a beginner, how much of a difference does the Canon Rebel XSi have over the Canon Rebel XS? Would they still be able to come out with the same quality pictures, or is it just technicalities that only a professional would really notice? If I got the Canon Rebel XS will I regret not spending the little extra for the XSi in the long run?
Posted by Dan Borzynski on April 23, 2009 at 1:11 AM
Don't apologize for the questions. It is the best way to learn. I can assure you that a lot of us who started shooting before this website came up would have loved to have had this resource when we were starting.
For the difference in the two cameras - both of them are pretty solid cameras. I don't think you'll be making a mistake with either one. Personally, I'd prefer the XSi for the larger LCD on the back and slightly higher mexapixel count. From looking at the B&H website, the difference in price is a compact flash card or two, which is something else you'll need to purchase.
With compact flash cards, you don't need the latest and greatest cards. Sandisk has a good reputation, with either the Ultra II or Extreme III. Don't buy the Extreme IV - they are good cards but you'll pay a lot more for capability your camera can't use. I've also used the Kingston cards without problems. They are a bit slower than the Sandisk despite speed claims, but solid. Someone else can chime in here.
And when you do get your camera, post some work. Don't feel like it isn't as good as as what you may be seeing here. It can be intimidating when you first start but you'll be surprised as to how fast you'll learn.
Chris, I'll just add a little something different about buying this kind of equipment. If this is to be a serious hobby, in which you spend lots of time and hopefully derive lots of pleasure and excitement, one of the most important things is that your camera and lenses FEEL good in your hands and have controls that are intuitive to you. The camera should feel well balanced and solid in your hands; you shouldn't have to grip it hard to make it fit your grip where you want it to. Similarly with the lenses. Go to a local camera shop and HOLD all the things in your hands that you are conidering buying. Then hold the competitor's items equivalent in price. Ask to see the next one UP the line and DOWN the line in both brands. Then reconsider your decisions carefully.
Also, I know that staying within a budget is important. OTOH, I have NEVER been disappointed by spending more than I thought I could afford. In the longer run, I believe it has saved me money. In this pursuit of photography, buying cheap costs a LOT! I heartily second the advice of considering good used gear and definitely to start with Canon or Nikon DSLR.
And we look forward to your posts and more questions. As Dan said, I, for one, sure wish this resource existed when I started my photog adventure. Most of all, have a GREAT time.
Posted by Richard Ditch on April 23, 2009 at 5:46 PM
Wow, this is a very scary thread! Don't buy anything until you set some reasonable expectations!
My question is what is a good beginner camera for someone who wants to take pictures of nature ( birdwatching, landscapes, detailed textures of plants, animals, ect). I'm guessing a camera fit for taking decent pictures of nature doesn't come cheap, but what would the cheapest camera thats decent enough for the needs of nature picture taking be?
Your definition of "nature" is much too broad for a single simple cheap camera/lens:
- birds: long fast expensive lens plus big expensive tripod plus expensive gimbal head plus expensive custom tripod mounts
- landscapes: wide angles to short telephoto, stable tripod
- detailed textures: macro lens, stable tripod
Go to a local camera store and talk with a salesdroid. Hold some cameras. Play with lenses to see what they actually do. Find a local camera club and have the members show you what they use - they'll be happy to help you get a basic understanding.
What about the computer side of the equation? Processing speed to handle those images. Photoshop (or at least Elements). Memory cards, a card reader, external hard drives to store the files. Don't leave this part out of your budget.
At the very least look here in the various galleries and find the kinds of images you want to take, then look at the equipment used (the focal length especially). See what i really takes to get the sort of images you imagine taking, and make a list of the set of lenses you would need to take all the shots.
If you are not realistic about what you want to do and what it takes to do it you will never be happy no matter how much you spend and what gear you buy.
I will be getting a 300mm lens with my next pay check haha. I will definitely be posting my pics as soon as I get the hang of it! Thank you all.
Posted by Nathan Buck on April 23, 2009 at 7:39 PM
I was glad to see what Richard Ditch posted, as this is so true. All of the different genres that you mentioned use different gear. My favorite thing to shoot is flora and macro. I have a stury tripod, and a macro lens. While I can use that lens for other applications, macro is what it does best. It was not cheap, at nearly $600 but has been one of my best purchases ever.
I have one Ultra II and one Extreme III card. They have been very good for me.
I use PhotoShop elements. This will run you another $50 or $60.
Good luck!
Nathan
Posted by Jim Greenwood on April 23, 2009 at 7:48 PM
I don't see where anyone else has made this suggestion, so I'll just put it out there. Since you're narrowing down your choice to the XSi, perhaps you should consider going for the new T1i (B&H Photo) (Canon U.S.A). The T1i body with the 18-55mm IS lens is $900, which is only $200 more than the XSi body with the same lens. The T1i is 15.1Mp vs. 12.2Mp for the XSi.
I didn't see Richard Ditch's thread, thank you for sobering me lol. I suppose right now I primarily want to do landscapes, which, if I'm not mistaken, the 18-55mm lens that comes with the Canon Rebel XSi would be ok to start with.
Posted by Mark Stahlke on April 23, 2009 at 9:45 PM
Hi Chris,
You've received some excellent advise on equipment. I'd like to add some recommendations for reading material (besides NPN).
The John Shaw books are oriented towards film and thus a bit dated but all the concepts are still relevant. The two National Audubon books by Tim Fitzharris are excellent. I'm sure other folks can chime in with other "must read" titles. That might good thread by itself.
Finally, don't hesitate to participate in the NPN Image Critique galleries. START TODAY! You don't need a camera to have an opinion. Once you have your camera, start posting your images. Don't feel intimidated by the high quality of images you see in the IC galleries. How do you think they got so good? Actively participating by critiquing images and posting yours for critique is the single fastest way to get up to speed in your new avocation.
Strap on your seat belt and hang on!
Cheers,
Posted by Nathan Buck on April 24, 2009 at 5:34 PM
Hi Chris.
Yes, you are right, the 18-55 would be a good starting point for landscapes. While you are shooting landscapes, also consider some 'Man & Nature' type shots.
When I first started with NPN, I actually had posted several hundred critiques before posting my first photo for critique. I cannot believe how much I learned during that time. So I completely agree with Mark Stahlke.
If you have not headed over to the NP101 section of NPN, and looked at the articles there, make sure that you do that too!
Good luck,
Nathan
Posted by John mc Fall on April 30, 2009 at 3:17 PM
This has been a great help to me also and I must thank a great bunch of guys who have given Chris and myself a good insight to what photography and equipment used and purchased correctly can achieve
Another newbie to DSLR. TY All
Discussion
28 repliesPhotography has always been an interest of mine, but Iv never really got the chance to really pursue that interest. Appreciating nature is a huge passion of mine and when I saw pictures of nature online I was awe struck and realized that I was photography bound, its not even a choice for me... hahah
My question is what is a good beginner camera for someone who wants to take pictures of nature ( birdwatching, landscapes, detailed textures of plants, animals, ect). I'm guessing a camera fit for taking decent pictures of nature doesn't come cheap, but what would the cheapest camera thats decent enough for the needs of nature picture taking be?
This is what I was thinking as my starting point...
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Powershot-SX10IS-Digital-Stabilized/dp/B001G5ZTZO/ref=dp_ob_title_ce
I would be willing to go higher in price for better quality,
Thank you very much for any help in advance
However, you said that photography has always been an interest. Enough to know that you're going to have this hobby for a while, and that you'll frequent forums like this and take lots of pics, and stick with it? If that's the case, definitely go for an entry level SLR.
As far as which one, they're all very good anymore and the main consideration for most people are particular features, and lenses especially. For most people, that means Nikon or Canon since they have by far the biggest selection of lenses. For me, personally, since I knew more about what I wanted (in body IS, zoom lenses, good live view, flip and twist screens) I bought an Olympus. But I started with a Canon superzoom, and feel like it was a good path for me.
Now I'm thinking this...
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-10-1MP-Digital-18-55mm-3-5-5-6/dp/B001CBKJGG/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=photo&qid=1240357835&sr=1-2
I cant find how far it will zoom though, would getting this camera require me to buy a separate lens or can I use it as is and get a better one later?
The photographer in me says to get the second choice, the Rebel. There is more long term flexibility and potential for growth. That particular lens will work well for general family shooting, landscapes, larger wildlife in context and some closeups as well. Birds, no. Headshots of deer in the field, no. Headshots of mosquitos, no. The first camera can probably get the deer and birds, with some patience, work and luck. Neither will get the mosquito headshot. You could extend the range of the camera by adding something like this lens
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/391074-REG/Sigma_508101_70_300mm_f_4_5_6_APO_DG.html
It is probably comparable to the kit lens that comes with the Rebel and will give you approximately the same focal length range of the first camera.
With the Rebel, you can buy additional lenses to cover the missing shots. A longer telephoto lens (200mm to 500 mm) will let you get the birds and deer (with patience, a bit lens work and a bit less luck), but there are the costs in getting those lenses. A second type of lens called a macro lens will let you get the mosquito headshot. But it is more money, even from third party manufacturers such as Sigma (probably the best of the third party companies), Tokina and Tamron.
Both camera options are pretty good. I don't think there is a "wrong" choice, but it is possible that one of the two may not be the right choice, if that makes any sense. Here are the two main questions I have for you to answer to yourself: How committed do you think you are and how much do you want to spend?
One word of advice about the actual purchase, whatever choice you make. Research the company you are planning to purchase from. There are a lot of truly slimy companies out there. Actually, slimy is a far too tactful description. The link I gave to B&H is good. I'd be okay buying through Amazon, if they are the ones handling the transaction. If they are sending you to a third party store like in the first camera choice, RESEARCH THE COMPANY!! B&H, Adorama (their phone sales people do match the NY'er reputation for rudeness, although they are honest), KEH for used gear, and Midwest Photo are all good.
Well I am absolutely sure that this will be a life long and more likely then not quite frequent hobby of mine. I am under the impression that getting the SLR choice is a better one for me, since I will be able to build on to it when I become more experienced. I would very much like to get a camera that will be able to get shots of birds and head shots of deer first but if I cannot I think I will settle for the Canon Rebel XS 10.1MP Digital SLR. That camera is on sale for 500, I would be willing to spend about up to 600 if I am able to get a similar quality camera with a better lens for those close up bird shots and such.
Would this be much better?
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Digital-Rebel-Camera-Body/dp/B0012Y88QQ/ref=sr_1_16?ie=UTF8&s=photo&qid=1240364585&sr=1-16
http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-70-300mm-4-5-6-Telephoto-Cameras/dp/B000AM7CJ0/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=photo&qid=1240367831&sr=1-3
Nothing, and I mean nothing, will improve and complement your photography more than a good tripod. It is absolutely essential for nature photography.
There's a good rebate on SanDisk SD Cards at Beach Camera.
As far as the Sigma, don't go for the cheaper non-APO 70-300mm that you found on Amazon, the one that Dan listed is the APO version, much better glass. At the end of the day, it's the lens quality that can have the biggest impact on your image quality. Here it is on Amazon.
The Xsi and the Sigma APO 70-300mm is a fine setup to get you going.
And YES, Kurt is right! A good tripod is essential. Something like this is a decent start.
I too agree that going with a DSLR is the way to go if you want to get into nature photography. The Rebel XS you mention in your post would probably do just fine and will give you a good tool to learn a lot of the craft of photography. The lens it comes with is a wide angle to "normal" zoom. This is a kit setup which will save you a few dollars but is only useful if that's the focal length range you want.
The Rebel uses interchangeable lenses so there's a wide variety of choices available to you. You might consider this kit plus a lens like the 70-300 IS (Image Stabilized) to give you a good range from wide angle (18mm) to telephoto (300mm). That way you'd be set up to get started with landscapes as well as a fair bit of nature photography. Eventually if you want to specialize in areas like macro and/or birds you'll probably want to look at more specialized lenses (and $$$) but to get started this setup should work well for you without breaking the bank.
Enjoy!
That said, it sounds like you're pretty new to all this so you might do best to start with a Rebel and a couple of lenses and use them to learn about photography and to get a feel for the subject matter that works best for you. If you're like many of us your interests and gear preferences will change over time and with experience and you'll end up replacing cameras and lenses a few times before you settle into a particular area.
As to other things, get over Amazon and get your gear from a CAMERA vendor. B&H is the gold standard that all compare themselves to. Their prices warranties and service are all top notch BUT, there are others that are good. I've dealt with Hunt's Photo Video, MIdwest and Adorama and they all have always treated me well also with price, delivery and service.
Finally, I would echo the sentiment to buy Canon or Nikon. I use Canon and think it's the best but that is a very subjective thing that you can hear argued forever. Others are good no doubt My rationale for Canon or Nikon is this: they are no question high quality, they have the largest selection of bodies, lenses and accessories, they give you the ability to grow your system as you do and you will have most in common with other users for additional questions or advice. Good luck.
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Digital-Rebel-Camera-Body/dp/B0012Y88QQ/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1240452067&sr=1-2
and
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-75-300mm-4-5-6-Telephoto-Cameras/dp/B00004THD0/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1240452161&sr=1-5
Sound like a good start for nature? Think the lens will suffice for reasonable close ups? I don't expect getting detailed shots of anything to far away that a professional might be able to, maybe a close up of a bird on a close by tree, somewhat crisp landscapes, ect.
BTW, would any of you recommend online stores other then amazon? I would like to compare some prices but there's sooo many shady sites I've come across, Id rather ask people here and not risk it haha
You're probably not going to find one lens that's great for everything, so if you're more interested in wildlife, birds, and other intimate scenes, then go with something like the 75-300, but if you're more interested in landscapes and the big picture, something like an 18-55mm will be much more useful.
For a beginner, how much of a difference does the Canon Rebel XSi have over the Canon Rebel XS? Would they still be able to come out with the same quality pictures, or is it just technicalities that only a professional would really notice? If I got the Canon Rebel XS will I regret not spending the little extra for the XSi in the long run?
For the difference in the two cameras - both of them are pretty solid cameras. I don't think you'll be making a mistake with either one. Personally, I'd prefer the XSi for the larger LCD on the back and slightly higher mexapixel count. From looking at the B&H website, the difference in price is a compact flash card or two, which is something else you'll need to purchase.
With compact flash cards, you don't need the latest and greatest cards. Sandisk has a good reputation, with either the Ultra II or Extreme III. Don't buy the Extreme IV - they are good cards but you'll pay a lot more for capability your camera can't use. I've also used the Kingston cards without problems. They are a bit slower than the Sandisk despite speed claims, but solid. Someone else can chime in here.
And when you do get your camera, post some work. Don't feel like it isn't as good as as what you may be seeing here. It can be intimidating when you first start but you'll be surprised as to how fast you'll learn.
Chris, I'll just add a little something different about buying this kind of equipment. If this is to be a serious hobby, in which you spend lots of time and hopefully derive lots of pleasure and excitement, one of the most important things is that your camera and lenses FEEL good in your hands and have controls that are intuitive to you. The camera should feel well balanced and solid in your hands; you shouldn't have to grip it hard to make it fit your grip where you want it to. Similarly with the lenses. Go to a local camera shop and HOLD all the things in your hands that you are conidering buying. Then hold the competitor's items equivalent in price. Ask to see the next one UP the line and DOWN the line in both brands. Then reconsider your decisions carefully.
Also, I know that staying within a budget is important. OTOH, I have NEVER been disappointed by spending more than I thought I could afford. In the longer run, I believe it has saved me money. In this pursuit of photography, buying cheap costs a LOT! I heartily second the advice of considering good used gear and definitely to start with Canon or Nikon DSLR.
And we look forward to your posts and more questions. As Dan said, I, for one, sure wish this resource existed when I started my photog adventure. Most of all, have a GREAT time.
Your definition of "nature" is much too broad for a single simple cheap camera/lens:
- birds: long fast expensive lens plus big expensive tripod plus expensive gimbal head plus expensive custom tripod mounts
- landscapes: wide angles to short telephoto, stable tripod
- detailed textures: macro lens, stable tripod
Go to a local camera store and talk with a salesdroid. Hold some cameras. Play with lenses to see what they actually do. Find a local camera club and have the members show you what they use - they'll be happy to help you get a basic understanding.
What about the computer side of the equation? Processing speed to handle those images. Photoshop (or at least Elements). Memory cards, a card reader, external hard drives to store the files. Don't leave this part out of your budget.
At the very least look here in the various galleries and find the kinds of images you want to take, then look at the equipment used (the focal length especially). See what i really takes to get the sort of images you imagine taking, and make a list of the set of lenses you would need to take all the shots.
If you are not realistic about what you want to do and what it takes to do it you will never be happy no matter how much you spend and what gear you buy.
Looks like Ill be ordering this...
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/598184-REG/Canon__EOS_Rebel_XSi_a_k_a_.html#includes
I will be getting a 300mm lens with my next pay check haha. I will definitely be posting my pics as soon as I get the hang of it! Thank you all.
I have one Ultra II and one Extreme III card. They have been very good for me.
I use PhotoShop elements. This will run you another $50 or $60.
Good luck!
Nathan
You've received some excellent advise on equipment. I'd like to add some recommendations for reading material (besides NPN).
John Shaw's Landscape Photography
John Shaw's Nature Photography Field Guide
National Audubon Society Guide to Landscape Photography
National Audubon Society Guide to Nature Photography
The John Shaw books are oriented towards film and thus a bit dated but all the concepts are still relevant. The two National Audubon books by Tim Fitzharris are excellent. I'm sure other folks can chime in with other "must read" titles. That might good thread by itself.
Finally, don't hesitate to participate in the NPN Image Critique galleries. START TODAY! You don't need a camera to have an opinion.
Strap on your seat belt and hang on!
Cheers,
Yes, you are right, the 18-55 would be a good starting point for landscapes. While you are shooting landscapes, also consider some 'Man & Nature' type shots.
When I first started with NPN, I actually had posted several hundred critiques before posting my first photo for critique. I cannot believe how much I learned during that time. So I completely agree with Mark Stahlke.
If you have not headed over to the NP101 section of NPN, and looked at the articles there, make sure that you do that too!
Good luck,
Nathan
Another newbie to DSLR. TY All