Sooo, finnaly decided it was about time to get on the scene and went out and bought myself a 450D with the basic 18-55 IS lens. Although this is a start, im after some guidance and my next lens or 2, camera/laptop bag and mabye some filters. On abit of a budget as well, saving up for a trip to New Zealand next month Mainly i will be doing a lot of landscape/wildlife photography as i live in the tropics, and abit of everything else. Wouldnt mind a nice wide angle lens either. But to be honest i really dont know were to start. Any suggestions would be more than welcome, Thanks
Spend some time and get to understand and really know the camera. Gear for the sake of gear will get you nowhere. And once you learn how to really use the camera effectively, learn about light. Lots about it. Everything about it. Read Strobist, and get a book or two about lighting. Photography, at its core, is capturing light - so understanding everything you can about how it works is a fantastic asset. You won't get much wider than the kit lens without spending quite a lot (Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 or the Canon 10-22), and from what I hear the 18-55 IS isn't too bad especially by kit lens standards. A decent telephoto would be worth looking into, but without at least a guideline for a budget it's hard to make a good recommendation. Also consider a good tripod - not one of the cheap $40 things either!
Thanks for the info there on lighting, ill try to look into that book. In the sense of budget prices vary abit over here in australia but i would prolly say around $500AUD (£200) budget for my first lens. Although im more asking for a future guide and might be a month or more before i get a second lens
Well whatever you end up choosing, remember that the camera, lenses, lights, and other accessories are tools that help you do something, but your skill and abilities are really doing 99% of the work. For wildlife, a longer lens is probably a good choice. Another recent thread is asking a lot of the same thing, so keep an eye on that one too. I'd recommend any of the 70-200L lenses, but that's probably stretching your budget too far unless you're willing to wait a little bit to get it. Along with many other things, photography is very much "buy cheap, buy twice", but especially as it sounds like it's a fairly new hobby for you it's hard to make a good recommendation without really knowing your shooting style.
Well hopefully over the next few weeks i will get to do quite abit of photography and will be able to explain my needs better. I do how ever have a limited accsess to quite a few high end lens with my step dad owning a 1Ds mark 3, but when it comes to advice his very narrow minded only advising high high end gear, tyring to sell me his old 1D mark 3 for a first DSLR. But from what your seeing, I'm lead to believe you recommend staying with the kit lens until a time arises were i am more a familiar with my camera? Im just thinking that i probally want to get another lens before i go to New zealand, were i will be mainly taking landscape snaps
Firehed pretty much sums up what I would do. Get to know the camera first. And the stock lens is actually a very good landscape lens, mainly because of its wide angle. There are of course better lenses, but like Firehed said already those cost a pretty penny. Dont overbuy just for the sake of having excellent equipment, you work up to that stuff. I've seen some excellent shots from disposable cameras ( I work in a retail lab), so dont underestimate your equipment.
Nobody would do well with a 1D MkIII for a first camera. If he thinks so, look at his photos. I'll put money on them being almost entirely very high-res mediocrity. When you know what you're doing, you can make great photos with a point and shoot through an $8000 SLR to a $50k digital medium format, etc. When you don't, it just doesn't matter. They may be a little sharper, or higher resolution, or maybe the metering was a little better in the high-end model, but that's it. When a professional-grade body tells you "turn around, idiot - the action is behind you" or "move ten feet to the left where the lighting doesn't suck", then maybe I'll be inclined to believe that a higher-end body can truly make a difference. But that will never happen, because professionals already know that. * Low-light performance is the exception to the rule here - that's one thing that's not at all consistent across bodies, but being able to get usable shots from ISO25600 is still useless if you've got a boring subject.
I disagree, to an extent, about having a pro-body as a first DSLR--if you've got the money and passion go for it. There are a lot of things a pro body will allow you to do and aid you in doing that amateur bodies will not--namely AF ability+low light performance, ISO performance, ergonomics, larger/brighter VF, higher frame rate etc etc. If I could have started with a 5D or 1DIIn I would have hands down--would it have drastically amplified my photography skills? I don't know, but it would have helped for sure. I'm not saying DON'T get an amateur camera, but I am saying if you understand the trade you will eventually be able to use the tool it to its full capability..then again it all depends on the individual--some people are hopeless. As for nature and wildlife, If I were you I'd look into the 70-300IS before any version of 70-200. Reach is key.
I also find myself in a similar position to Waste, Mabye someone could suggest a good photography book, to get us on our way
hmm self quote from other thread getting sense of deja-vu. they really are good books and the tutorial thread is exceptional as well. should be stickyd really
Oh, I'm not at all saying that pro bodies aren't fantastic - I'm just saying that (by and large) their advantages are only helpful if you have half a clue what you're doing. ISO12800 is no good if you've left the body in P-mode ISO100 and it plops you at f/3.5 1/6s for a "correct" exposure. You can never go wrong with better AF or ergonomics, though.
I was referring to "nobody will do well with a 1D MkIII for a first camera..." specifically, which isn't true at all, in fact I am sure if I started with a 1-series I would have made better photographs off the bat. ISO performance is hardly the largest difference, AF is. There is no substitution for pro-AF, especially after you shoot with a pro body and go back to a semi-pro/amateur body--keeper rates are vastly improved. Point is, while the saying may have some truth, "gear doesn't make the photographer" is a bit of an exaggeration. While it will not make you a good photographer, it will enable a good photographer to make better images by extending capabilities. Just like any tool of any trade, generally speaking a hammer is better suited to drive a nail rather than a rock--they both are capable of doing it, but the hammer is more efficient and will yield better results virtually every time.
What is this hammer thing you speak of? In my country we always use rocks to get things done. We even beat a lump of metal into th eshape of a mermaid and stuck it on top of some rocks as a tribute to the rock. All hail rocks. But that hammer thing does sound interesting. ;-)
