0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 10922 times.
You are erring on the side of buying too much at first. As you note, she has to tell you the lens mount system she prefers (nikon, canon, sony, 4/3rds)She actually has no idea based on the camera she uses now. I would advise Nikon, but Canon is fine too.This is where you go to read on camera and reviews on them, etc.http://www.dpreview.com/
I would look at a Canon 5D on the used market. Try and get an idea of the number of shots the camera has used. I "think" I sold mine for around $1,200 about a year ago and that was about 50% retail.It has ridiculous amount of ISO for low light shooting - I was shooting a lot of concerts.Look on Ebay for glass as well. You will be paying about 50% of retail and there is always of turnover since most die hards are looking for the latest revision.I have been out of i for a while, but the 25 - 70 2.8 / Non IS (image stabilization) is great lens and can be cheap since Canon has introduced a full IS version. It was always my "walk around" glass.The 70 - 200 L 2.8 IS mentioned previously is killer lens also. I sold mine for around 50% of retail also and there is a new iteration out on it.I like the low apertures since I was typically shooting in music venues.Beware - a camera hobby can rival the amount of money spent on stereo components as well
Not a big fan of ebay because you are competing against people from everywhere. Try local photo groups or Craigslist. I oversee the Ozarks Shutter Junkies on FB. Tons of valuable info there from people's direct experience, and there are FB pages for buying and selling gear.If you are near a larger city consider renting used gear from a good B&M shop. Best way to find out what "fits" her needs.
TB,That may be a good way to proceed once she gets relocated from Seattle to Flagstaff. I'd kinda like to get her something when I'm in Seattle this week, but I also don't want to rush a pretty big expenditure.AC
I'd strongly consider Nikon's D7100 or 7200 over the 5000 series. They feel solid without being too heavy. Well-balanced with both light and heavy glass attached.Yes, you can go with the kit lenses (18-55/55-200) but a 17-55 2.8 will produce much better images and will hold up to years of abuse, the kit lens won't. I've also heard that the 70-300VR lens is really quite sharp, far superior to the 55-200.And if she wants to shoot the night sky in Arizona, the 2.8 lens will be the way to go. It's not a toy, it's a real tool.
I really think you need to give us some kind of price range that you're looking at, this thread is really all over the place.I shoot a Nikon D5500 with a lot of lenses, and sometimes a Canon 6D with 24-70 F/2.8 L, and can tell you that the Nikon DX bodies and lenses offers way way more value for money, but it's comparing $600 with $3000, you have to know what price range you're looking at. Cameras also are all diminishing returns as you get up in price, just like speakers.
For the professional zooms, I like to rent them from: borrowlenses.com(you can rent locally in many cities, not sure about Flagstaff though)
FYI - in 15 years the digital camera body you buy today will have been replaced (maybe 2 or 3 times over), but she still will have whatever lenses you buy for a lifetime.My personal favorite lens is a 50/1.8 that cost me $89 new and has taken more photos for me than any other due to it's simplicity and convenience. On a DX crop you may want 30mm or 35mm 1.4 or 1.8 instead.Thirty years from now your daughter will be taking pictures on some 1 billion megapixel camera, but still using the prime lenses you got her this week.
Glazers camera in Seattle is decent.Ordering online from B&H or Adorama is fast, tax free, and they also have interesting used lens collections that are WORTH looking at once you know what lenses you want.They test their lenses, and I have bought many used lenses from B&H with awesome results (they stand behind their stuff too).
I also want to point out that the above 17-55mm 2.8 is a $1500 lens, which may sticker shock the OP. I find the 18-55mm kit lens to be way sharper than I need, especially stopped down to F/8 for landscapes.
The bigger, more complex, and heavier a camera system gets, the less likely you are to carry it. It's easy to be seduced by the notion that you need a collection of "glass" to cover every possible situation. It doesn't help you take better photographs. If I were starting from scratch knowing what I know now, I would get a mirrorless camera with a crisp wide-angle (say 21-24 mm EFL) and a macro lens say 90-100 mm EFL. That combination would cover most of the photography enjoyment I've had. Unfortunately, the particular choice there is only something the individual can discover for themselves The macro lens, by the way, doubles pretty well as a portrait and landscape lens.You may also want to consider setting her up with some essential accessories, like white balance filters, remote shutter release, and a nice tripod (and they are not cheap). And a good bag (I really like Crumpler).One advantage of mirrorless is that you can get adapters for lenses from most other non-mirrorless systems. So if you do come across a prize piece of glass in your travels, it can stay with you even if you switch systems.
