what equipment would be best?

ernesto

ernesto

Well-known member
I want to move into digital photography now and I'm mainly interested in street photography. So candids, portraits, etc. is mainly what I'm going to be shooting. I want to stay in the $1500 or less range and this is what I've considered so far:

Canon path:

- Rebel XT ($500)
- 17-40L ($600)
- 70-200L ($600)



Nikon path:

- D50 ($450)
- 18-200 VR ($800)


I'm leaning more towards the Nikon because it will be cheaper, and it'll be nice to have one lens to cover 99% of situations, where with the canon I might find myself switching from the 17-40 to the 70-200 too much. However, those Canon lenses are great quality and I'm not sure if the 18-200 could match the quality of those canon lenses. Also, the XT's 8MP give more detail than the D50's 6MP. What are your opinions?

Thanks,

Ernesto.
 
Last edited:
I've shot Nikon cameras for over thirty-five years. Never had any problems with them.
Nothing wrong with Canon's either but when I was starting out, Nikon's were the ****.
 
What do you mean by street photography? Many great classic shots were taken with (Leica and) 35mm lens. Small size, unobtrusive, fast. I would go with a compact sized camera/lens combo, even a fixed focal lenght (speed is important, point, (pre)focus, shoot. No time for zooming). What does a longesh zoom look like on the streets?
 
Petrus said:
What do you mean by street photography? Many great classic shots were taken with (Leica and) 35mm lens. Small size, unobtrusive, fast. I would go with a compact sized camera/lens combo, even a fixed focal lenght (speed is important, point, (pre)focus, shoot. No time for zooming). What does a longesh zoom look like on the streets?
Click to expand...

Very true. I think maybe I'll go with a Rebel XT (little) and the Tamron 17-50 (constant f/2.8) and then once I get used to that setup I'll see what else I need.
 
Sounds like you have your heart set on digital. I wouldn't worry too much about the choice. The Canon and Nikon are both going to treat you right, and you can find comparable lenses for both systems. I might suggest spending an hour playing with both cameras just to see what's more comfortable.

Petrus makes a good point, though. Most of your famous "street photographers" made their names with simple kits... prime lenses and small, inconspicuous bodies. Usually Leica. I'm in the market for a used Leica myself. They're small, light, and you won't find better lenses anywhere. But that's if you're interested in shooting film.
 
I use film right now, but the camera I'm using really isn't that good. I'm using a really old Zenit camera, the light meter doesn't work and everything is manual, like winding the film and all that jazz. Then, I might take 100 pictures and get 10 that I really like, but I still spent 3 bucks for each roll + 6 bucks for developing each roll, so I spent basically $30 to get 10 pictures I like. With digital, I'll get the 10 pictures I like, and I can just spend like 2 dollars printing them. So I'll save a lot of money in the long run. I'm 16 and don't have a lot of money so I'm really conservative when shooting with film, I would shoot lots more if I could take as many as I wanted.
 
I'm sure like many others here, I learned photography with film. I've also shot with several Canon's and several Nikons. My preference is for Nikon simply for lens compatibility purposes. In the price range you're looking at, the bodies are nearly disposable. Don't sweat that. Does the Rebel still have a plastic body interface for the lens? If so, I wouldn't touch it. I know they used to.

I swore that if I was starting out with photography again, digital would be the only way to go. Then I read a post like this.

Nikon used to run weekend camps to help people learn to shoot better. When I got a job at the paper I went to one of these seminars and I learned a ton. However, the most important lesson I learned is that when you are looknig for an image, speed is the LAST thing that should be on your mind. I can remembe buying rolls of Velvia at $7.50 a pop, putting them in my small cooler (we kept the film cold to maximize the stability of the film) and shooting 3-4 rolls per event. As the skill went up, the usable pictures did too. In time, I was getting mostly keepers. But it took time to learn. And until I did, I practiced with bulk-loaded Tri-X. For much the same reason you are looking at digital.

So I will say this. Digital opens up the opportunity for you to shoot loads of utter crap. It's not skill, it's attitude. With film, you compose with more care, you check your settings, you pay attention to background, and you take your time. And I'd bet good money you get a lot more printable shots on film. Go ahead and get a digital camera. But shoot it like film. At least while you learn. Take your time. Get 10 good shots instead of 100 mediocre or bad shots.


And by the way, my first camera was an Anscomat, rangefinder camera with a fixed lens. I graduated to a Canon AE-1, then a T-70, and eventually to a Nikon F4-S wihen it was the camera to own. Nothing wrong with learning with a fully manual camera. Best thing I ever did was shoot that F4S in full manual, with a bulb release. Darn near every shot was a keeper. I shoulda got the Linhof when I had the chance.



ernesto said:
I use film right now, but the camera I'm using really isn't that good. I'm using a really old Zenit camera, the light meter doesn't work and everything is manual, like winding the film and all that jazz. Then, I might take 100 pictures and get 10 that I really like, but I still spent 3 bucks for each roll + 6 bucks for developing each roll, so I spent basically $30 to get 10 pictures I like. With digital, I'll get the 10 pictures I like, and I can just spend like 2 dollars printing them. So I'll save a lot of money in the long run. I'm 16 and don't have a lot of money so I'm really conservative when shooting with film, I would shoot lots more if I could take as many as I wanted.
Click to expand...
 
There is no reson to shy away from digital eventhough old masters did everything with film. Now they would also use digital.

The problem with digital cameras is the fact that there really is not much choice in MANUAL, COMPACT digital cameras at a reasonable price. Please name one with workable manual focus... The only way to go would be a compact dSLR with a prime lens.

Certainly taking your time results in better pictures on the average, but if we are talking about "street photography" in the classical sense speed is everything. It is the composition and the movement & sight vectors we are after, no time for focusing (especially slow autofocus) not even exact framing. In all other respects Perrone is absolutelly correct.
 
Petrus said:
Certainly taking your time results in better pictures on the average, but if we are talking about "street photography" in the classical sense speed is everything. It is the composition and the movement & sight vectors we are after, no time for focusing (especially slow autofocus) not even exact framing. In all other respects Perrone is absolutelly correct.
Click to expand...

Petrus is absolutely right in the sense of "street photography" as applies to journalism. But there is a reason why we carried 35mm lenses stopped way down. You had no time to focus or zoom. Raise the camera and shoot. Crop in the darkroom, and hope you got the moment you wanted.

But I got the sense the poster was talking about something slightly different, in which case we are talking about learning the "art" behind the shot. Which means slow down. If I am misundertstanding the meaning, then please follow what Petrus has said here. He is absolutely correct.
 
What I mainly want to do is to just go out on the streets, or around my house (I live with a really big family) and take candids of people, shooting some from the hip, etc. I can spend up to $1,500 but would rather stay at around $1,000. So the D80 is out of my league, that leaves the Rebel XTi, Rebel XT and the D50. Then, that leaves the following combos:

- Rebel XTi ($750)
- Canon 28mm f/2.8 ($170)
- Canon 50mm f/1.8 ($70)

This kit is $990. Gives me a couple of sharp, useful primes and lets me print 13x8.6 at 300dpi.


- Rebel XT ($500)
- Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 ($420)

This kit is $920. Gives me a sharp, fast zoom and lets me print at 11.5x7.7 at 300dpi.


- Nikon D50 ($450) (Very comfortable to hold)
- Nikon 24mm f/2.8 ($300) (Nice FOV)
- Nikon 50mm f/1.8 ($100)

This kit is $850. Gives me a comfortable camera with two useful primes and lets me print at 10x6.7 at 300dpi.

What do you guys think about these? Suggestions for other good kits? So far, I think the XTi or the XT with the kits I mentioned offer the most bang for the buck.
 
Is there any particular reason you must buy a new body? I'd have to think that you could get some rather nice used bodies out there for $500-$750. Again, my preference is Nikon, but that's just me.
 
Used bodies aren't really a good deal from what I've seen, a quick example:

Ebay auction that just ended - $428 for a used, body-only D50.

Adorama - $424 for a new body-only D50.


Used lenses might be a good idea though.

I could go for a Nikon D50 with this lens:

Used Nikon 24mm f/2.8 AI ($164)

and this

Used Nikon 50mm f/1.4 AI ($80)

That would be a very cheap kit at about $670 and f/1.4 would be sweet for portraits, while the 24mm is perfect for candids on the street. Thoughts on this kit?
 
Last edited:
Or you could go for something like this:

Body:

KEH has a D1X body in excellent condition for $695

Wide Angle:


24mm F2.6 AIS Ex $198

Portait:

85mm F2 AIS Ex $245


So now for $1138 plus shipping, you have a fast portrait or medium telephoto lens, you have a fast, wide angle lens for street shooting, or cramped indoor shooting, and you have a professional body to build a system around.

Later on you can add a 300mm F4 (or 2.8) if your photography goes that way, or a nice mid focal length zoom. If you change out to a more modern body, everything goes with you. If you find a great bargain on ANY Nikon lens from any era, it will fit. Can't do that with the Canons.

I did not shop around for prices. I just gave prices from the first place I visited. Leave Ebay alone, and deal with people who know cameras and deal with professionals or good amateurs.

(I see that Midwest has a Nikon 24mm F2.8 AF-D for $149, and a 35-70 2.8 AF-D for $349)
 
That kit would also be feasible, and I've heard of the D1x always referred to as professional and the D50 as entry-level, but spec-wise they seem pretty similar except for the build. I've never even held a D1x, and I'm sure that it is better than the D50, but what about it is it that makes it a professional tool?
 
Well, I could say when you hold it, you'll know! :)

Really it's a lot. Everything from the frame of the camera being milled from a solid block of metal, to metering, to shutter control, to speed, to balancing of the internal mechanisms, etc.

Here are some things to check out:

http://photo.net/equipment/nikon/d1x

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond1x/

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D1X/D1XA.HTM


Essentially, you are moving from a camera designed for people who shoot 50 pics on weekends, to a camera designed for someone who shoots to earn their living.

It's just different in every way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top