Equipment New gear advice needed

I'm so very close to restarting my photography again and I will be buying new equipment within next 3 weeks. I'll do lots of portrait and landscapes and I'd like to try macro at some point. My question is, should I go for the best camera I can afford and cheep prime lens and star building up from there or will I get better results if I buy cheaper SLR and really good lens instead? My budget is £2000 +/- £200.

My initial ideas are:
1. Nikon D700 or Canon 5D Mark II + 50mm lens;
2. Nikon D300s or Canon 7D + much better lens (ideas?).

Thanks for the advice.

 

Get an Olympus

Normally I wouldn't say something like this, but Olympus' are VERY nice cameras, for a fraction of the cost of the Nikons and Canons and with a budget like yours you can get a high end Olympus and some nice lenses for that (Macro lens, 50mm and 28mm for your portraits and landscapes)

 

If you go with Olympus, wait until Photokina this year.

I'm shooting Olympus myself (E-3), but the future of 4/3rds is not certain. So before buying any more Oly related stuff, I'm waiting to see if the E-5 is any good.

Nikon gear is probably what I'm going to go for if Olympus bails out of 4/3rds, but there are a few problems.

I certainly wouldn't go with D300s, since lets face it, it's old technology now. The D700 is nice, but it's coming to the end of its life also. D400 or D800 would be the way to go, but there's no saying when they will be out.

5D MkII is nice, but I'm not a big Canon fan myself. Although if they fit in your hand, they might suit you well.

It's a hard decision, mostly I'm not liking Canon and Nikon because of the lack of the body IS. I don't want to buy the same piece of equipment time and time again. On the other hand you have way more options when it comes to accessories and used gear. With Olympus they are really rare.

A bit of rambling there, but I'm finding myself struggling with this question also (even though I have pretty extensive Oly gear now).

Darkened

 

Uhggg. What ever you do, don't do that. Both Nikon and Canon make better photographic tools and have far better lens selections. I'd recommend trying them out for yourself. I'll reserve my opinions as to avoid any brand wars.

 

Thanks guys. I had Olympus before and I don't particularly like them, no offence, just my preference. Had Nikon D80 for long time, but it's time to move on. Question was more in a sense of: How will I get better results, by splashing for the best possible body + 50mm lens now and some other later, or will the best results be from perhaps a bit cheaper body but matched with expensive but quality lens?

Thanks again.

 

Interesting, can you explain this in more detail for those that don't understand?

Thanks.

 

If it was me and I was starting from scratch with that budget, I'd be more inclined to opt for a D90/550D and a couple of decent lenses. You could get the best body you can right now and have only a single prime lens to go with it, but it's not a very versatile solution so you'd probably just end up getting frustrated by not being able to get the shots you want, and by the time you invest in more lenses the body will probably be outdated anyway. It's almost always better to invest in good glass to start off with, since it holds its value better and won't be obsolete within a few years.

 

Invest in glass first and then buy a better body once you've got a good collection of lenses. They hold their value better and a good body with low-quality glass will produce low-quality pictures. A lower-quality body with great glass will still produce sharp, contrasty and well-saturated images because it's the lens that's most important.

I had a 450D and started buying L-series glass for it (I didn't buy any EF-S lenses); once I'd built up a collection, I then bought a 5D Mark II and continued adding good glass to my collection. Frankly speaking, the upgrade to the 5D Mark II didn't take my photos to another level, but it's allowed me to stay out for longer in more adverse weather conditions (particularly important for landscape work, where light is at its most dramatic when it's about to piss it down). I go out with my camera more than ever now, but some of my favourite photos were taken on my 450D.

As for whether Nikon or Canon is better, it depends on your personal preference for the end result - both manufacturers produce great bodies, but there are different looks/feelings in the end result that you may or may not prefer. Canon's images tend to be slightly noisier at higher ISOs but they're generally crisper too.

 

I recommend trying everything for yourself first, but Olympus are as capable as both Canon and Nikon, I don't know why you reckon they're better, most people have Canon or Nikon because they have lenses from older Canons and Nikons, or they've taken recommendations from people who have used Canon and Nikon since the days of film.

No offence taken, as long as you've given them a go for yourself and not just assumed that because it's not Canon or Nikon that it's crap... I hear Pentax have a nice feel to them as well but it's down to personal preference ofc.

The best bet is to get a nice lens and then get a better body later, Lenses tend to make all the difference though I wouldn't walk around with just a 50mm anyway (at least have a 28mm as well, if not a midrange zoom lens)

 

I always recommend spending more on glass over bodies. Bodies come and go but well-cared for quality glass can serve you for a very long time. You can also get great results with older bodies. The main advantages in the high end bodies are: focusing performance, burst frame speeds and low-light performance. Unless you absolutely must have the high-end of these features, you will be paying a premium for things you don't really need.

That said, if you realistically expect to go full-frame in the future, let that influence your lens purchases. Lenses do hold their value much better but there's no sense in having to liquidate a crop lens if you don't have to.

 

Don't buy a 50mm. There are better lenses that are more flexible and offer more for the money. Particularly if you want a portrait lens. Go longer. Get a 70-200/2.8 and don't look back.

 

There's a big price difference between any 50mm and a 70-200. That said, I would rather have a D90/D300 with a 70-200 than a D700 with a 50mm.

 

Compared to Canon/Nikon
-Limited lens selection
-Poor high ISO performance
-Relatively slower/less accurate AF

I'm sure there are more, but these stand out.

 

Thanks for your info.

 

I totally agree about the 50mm option, but a 70-200/2.8 is going to cost significantly more and will likely prove less versatile than other options. If you decide on the 5DII, go with a Tamron 28-75 and add an 85/1.8 or 100/2.8 macro later down the road. If you go with the 7D pickup either the Tamron 17-50, Sigma 17-70 or 15-85IS along with the 85/1.8 or the 17-55IS. I can't speak for Nikon alternatives.

 

That is unfortunate, as you seem too know a lot about Olympus gear.

 

Except for the rare occasion, Tamron and Sigma lenses are cross platform so the same advice holds.

 

Right, but I was speaking about Canon's lenses (i.e. 85/1.8, 15-85, 17-55)

 

So would an Olympus D-SLR not give very good pictures at, say, a relatively high ISO of 1600 ?

 

I only know what I've seen. I know Oly doesn't hold up to either Canon or Nikon in terms of high ISO. I know that Oly doesn't offer a large selection of lenses, and what they do offer is lacking (IMO). I know that both Canon and Nikon surpass Oly in terms of AF speed and accuracy. I also know that both Canon and Nikon offer superior options and total performance, which is why they are leading in the market. People don't just buy them because they are popular--their reputations speak for themselves. I'd love to see anyone choose to argue.