I need your expertise

Joined: 30 Jul 2005 Posts: 5

Hi everybody, this is my first post!!!!
I really need advice, I want to buy SLR camera body and lense, and I just don't know where to began. I have some knowledge on photography since I have taken some clases, I'm interested on photo journalism, cities and B&W (I love to take candid pictures too), I would like photography to be a serious hobby, so I want a camera that can grow along with me and let me take professional quality pictures if I ever get to that point of course. I also would like to know what about a light metter, will the one that comes in the camera be enought for my first years of practicing, I can pay up to 1000$ for the camera and one lense, if that is of any help. Thank you so much!!

Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2005 3:30 am

Do you want to shoot film, or digital? Either way, you can get some serious kit for $1000 - especialy in film, but also in digi, if you look at used. Personally, I don't see a reason not to.

Joined: 30 Jul 2005 Posts: 5

I want to use film, thanks

Joined: 31 Jul 2005 Posts: 131 Location: Boulder, Colorado

If you want the best bang for your buck I would recommend a Nikon setup.....if you can afford it the old "F2A" is a great camera.....also, Nikon's AF mount is the same as the MF mount, so you can use newer AF lenses manualy on your camera if you need to. Nikon and Leica lenses cannot be matched for clarity and crisp focus in 35mm.......you may not see the differences now, but as you grow it will become more than apparent......a word about film....if you want to make prints that are any larger than say, 5x7 or 8x10 with out the grain driving you crazy, you may want to consider medium format....a great entry level system is the Bronica ETRS.....shoots a 6x4.5 cm image and has lots of accessories available at a good price.....it may feel a little cheap, but it performs great!

Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2005 3:02 pm

I always feel a little skeptical about any comment so the effect of "cannot be matched", etc. I have both Canon and Nikon gear, and find the glass to be just about the same, with some lenses being better than others across both brand names. Both companies have real legends in their line ups, and both have some less than great performers. I really have a hard time believeing that my Canon "L" lenses are in anyway inferior to anything Nikon has in its line up.
There is also more to the mount issue than first meets the eye. If you choose to use Nikon - you do have the adventge of lenses being "backwards compatible" to a large extent. On the other hand, if you opt not to go for auto focus, you can get a lot more for your dollar in Canon FD mount lenses. Because the mount is discontinued, you have a huge variety of used glass that is really quite cheap for what you get.
I find that the brand wars are almost as ridiculous as the digital vs film "debates" - there are plenty of professionals and fine art photographers who use not only Nikon or Canon, but also Minolta, Pentax and others - I doubt they would if they were sacrificing the qualty of their work. I do believe, that getting into a fairly popluar system from a major manufacturer is a good idea because of the wealth support and variety of options that opens ot a person. A quick scan of eBay, for example, will illustrate my point - look at the Nikon and Canon cameras or lenses and you will see they outnumber the next brand by a factor of several times. They are the big boys of the industry and their brands are supported accordingly. This also comes inhandy if you plan to travel - should you need maintenance, its better to have a Canon or a Nikon than almost anyting, simply because of theworld-wide popularity of the brands and product support that goes with it.
I would go to a camera store and handle some cameras in your price range - wether you are looking at new or used - and see which ones you feel most comfortable with. See how you like the size and shape of them, the viewfinder, all the switchgear and adjustments, etc. The best camera out there is only as good as your ability to use it - and how confortable you are with it, while it may seem trivial, will go a long way once you spend some time with the camera.
I think your next step is to think about some more specific technical issues:
- are you thinking 35mm? It is by far the most flexible format, and one that is probably the best "all rounder" - but there are many adventages to othe formats, like medium formats of various sizes.
- do you want/need autofocus?
- what type of photography will you mainly be doing (the equipment of a bird photographer is much different than that of a landsapeor portrait person)

My suggestion would be to start with used equipment, as it will give you great bang for your buck - no matter which way you go. Buy from reputable sources and the cameras and lenses are likely to have many many years of good service in them. You mentioned $1000 as your budget. That is a lot of money - a lot of good cameras and lenses can be had for that if you look at older equipment. You can even comfortably get into a medium format set up with that, if you feel you would like that.
Just to give you an example, a good shape, used Canon NewF1 with a motor drive and a auto exposure finder can be often had for less than $300-400. This will often include a very useful lens, like a 50mm fast prime. Now, that camerais a top level, professional quality SLR - but it is a manual focus camera. So in order to go into auto focus, youwould have to look at spending a similar amount on a consumer camera - which will often have as much or more in the way of features but not be as bullet proof. Also, if you want a manual focus, Nikon F3's can be had for fairly good prices, and those cameras are considered by many to be the best manual focus SLR's bar none.
It would be a very long thread to go through every camera out there and weigh its pros and cons - so get out there and try some in your hand, scanthe various on line stores and see the prices - but I think the first step would be to compile a bit of a list of your needs. With that list in hand, you will be able to better maximise your buying.

Joined: 30 Jul 2005 Posts: 5

I'll do that I'll do my list and will go out there to feel the cameras, I'll let you know the equipment of my choise then you can tell me your opinion, thanks Gnashings.
Fisheye I will keep in mind the F2A and the Bronica, thanks

Thank you guys

Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2005 8:31 am

Like I said - the 35mm format is still the most flexible of formats in many ways... but the first time you hold a medium format negative up to the light, see how big and beautiful it is... you're a lost cause at that point:)

Its a trap - run while you're still young!

All the best luck with your search - let us know how it goes!
Welcome to the fold!

Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2005 3:14 pm

I shoot film and prefer it. The magic word in your original question was "journalism". Most newspapers and magazines currently are issuing digital cameras to their staff. It cuts down the turnaround time, eliminates darkroom time, and allows immediate transmissions from the field. On the production end, it is quicker, easier, and less expensive to make plates and separations from digital than it is from reflective images.

Contact your local newspapers and ask them whether they prefer reproduction grade prints or digital files for submissions. I think you will get your digital/film answer with a few phone calls.

As for the actual camera, the quality demands at newspaper level is not very high. The output resolution does not need to be very high, but the camera should be fast, that is it should have little or no shutter lag and the start up time should be very short. There are many choices.

Canon and Nikon appear to be the prime choices; Olympus and Fuji make good cameras also.

Good luck.