Ignoramus "pro" wants to upgrade

[blkgryphon]

Hello everyone,

I find myself in a rather odd position. I am an artist/writer who now makes most of my living writing articles (mainly about horses) for magazines and newspapers, and I have also sold quite a few photos, most to accompany my articles but some on their own for the magazines/newspapers to use. I also recently photographed a horse training clinic I was writing up and ended up selling a number of photos to the participants and even the trainer.

The irony here is that [I]I know next to nothing about photography![I] I have a good eye for composition, lighting and color and so somehow manage to get some fairly nice shots, despite my lack of technical knowledge and my old/basic camera -- a Canon PowerShot S3 IS.

I am now looking into doing more photography at equine events and hopefully selling the shots to participants. I had a lot of fun doing it and people were really pleased with the results. However, I was painfully aware that there was much that could have been better in the shots...partially my fault (need to learn more) and partially the limitations of the camera (at least in auto mode, as I had it).

So, I have found my way to this great website and hope to start educating myself about the technical aspects of the craft. But, I also think I need a better camera and have no idea where to start. I once saw a REAL pro shooting some horses in motion, and she had a camera that could take a whole whack of high-quality shots per second, which enabled her to get "just the right moment" of a horse's stride, jump, etc. With my camera, there is so much delay from the time I press the button to when the actual shot gets taken that it's guess work, at best, as to what I'm going to get. I know my camera can do several shots in "quick" sequence, but I've tried it before and it's not nearly quick enough for dealing with horses in motion.

Another problem I had with my camera was that it struggled with the fairly low light conditions of the indoor arena, even with the flash. Many of the images were blurry, and I sometimes "disagree" with the camera about when the flash is needed. Sometimes, I would like it to go off and it doesn't, and I don't know if this can be done with this camera (maybe it can...I've long ago lost the booklet).

Then there is the limitation of the lens. I only have the one it came with and don't even know if you can get a longer range lens for this camera.

Thus, I'm thinking maybe something newer, faster, and so on would be better for what I want to do now. But, when I looked at "professional" cameras, they were like $7000! I nearly fainted! I am therefore hoping that you excellent people can recommend something maybe in the $750-1500 range that can do the "burst" thing really well, take good video, accommodate various lenses (I used to have a 70-210 zoom on my film camera back in the day...took FABULOUS pictures). Any thoughts (and lens recommendations) would be greatly appreciated.

I am not against buying used, either, if there is something around that could do what I need.

Many thanks,

Susan in CA

[Tzetsin]

Is that budget including lens?

A Canon T3i or a 60D sounds about up your alley. The t3i's burst rate is a little slow at 3 fps, and the 60D's not too bad at about 6 fps. Both have articulating (flip out) screens that make video capture much easier. the T3I is about 900 bucks and the 60D about a 1000 (body only) which leaves you 5-600 bucks for a lens of your choice.

The honest truth though is that you want to watch which lens you buy. When you were choosing your last camera you were only concerned about your camerea, as there was nothing to add to it. With a professional camera you buy a body, then put a lens on it. The lenses can easily out price your body. Even the 6000 dollar bodies. The do have a very good price range though from 100-12000. Its important to know that your actual image quality is going to depend a lot on the quality of your lens. cheap lens = harder to take a good picture. Also, DSLR cameras are a little harder to use than a point and shoot type. Keeping It on automatic will help for a while, but for any real nice shots your going to have to learn out to use the priority modes.

I cant really help you in the lens dept, I refuse to buy "cheap" leanses (though they can be really good!) so I know next to nothing about them. If you want to know something about the L line lenses, then I can help lol.

[Preeb]

A good possibility for Susan is to just buy the T2i kit for under $800, including the standard 18-55 kit lens. This would get her started, maybe not as "pro", but plenty to learn the ropes. The T31 is the same price for the body alone. Once she gets her feet wet, then she can make an informed decision as to what lenses she may need. The only thing is, this kit won't get her any significant telephoto range. For that the other "kit" lens, 55-250, would work, but it's about an additional $300. This is about as low a buy-in as I can come up with to get her started with a dSLR.

The other possibility is something like the G12. It's an advanced point and shoot, but it comes with a premium price too, at around $500. And no interchangeable lenses.

[veritasimagery]

Originally Posted by Preeb

A good possibility for Susan is to just buy the T2i kit for under $800, including the standard 18-55 kit lens. This would get her started, maybe not as "pro", but plenty to learn the ropes. The T31 is the same price for the body alone.

Not sure where you are getting your prices. B&H Photo, right now, sells the T2i for $629 USD

Canon EOS Rebel T2i Digital SLR Kit w/ EF-S/18-55 IS 4462B003

and the T3i for $699:

Canon EOS Rebel T3i Digital Camera Kit 5169B003 B&H Photo Video

Both come with the EF-S 18-55. There really is only a $70 price difference, and both are under $700.

[mrteacherdude]

The camera/lens combos listed above are certainly good enough to get you started, and I know there are are equivalent combos in the Nikon or other manufacturers' lines.

One thing I picked up on in your post though is that you sometimes shoot indoors and poor lighting conditions. You may find yourself still struggling with that even with the basic kits. While the entry level bodies can likely handle shooting indoors as they have pretty good high ISO handling (compared to just a few years ago anyway), you may find less than acceptable results with the kit lenses. Kit lenses (other than the pro grade kit lenses that can come with pro bodies) don't have the very best focus motors and also have don't have very wide apertures at the shortest end of their zooms, and get even smaller at the longer ends. While very acceptable outside in good light, they can leave one trying to figure out how to get better photos inside.

I sometimes shoot at indoor dog shows and found that my kit lenses, while "ok," really fell short of what I wanted to be able to do inside; without flash I should add. I invested in an 85mm f1.8 prime with a very fast focus mechanism and instantly became very pleased with what was possible. You may find yourself needing to do something similar, lens-wise. However, it was important for me to start with the kit zooms to see what kind of focal length I needed in the faster lens. I would certainly start with the zooms to see what kind of focal length you need to get the photos you want. I found the 85mm was suitable for most of what I do, but I'm right at ringside with most dogs in the ring within about 30 feet of where I am standing or sitting; dogs are pretty small compared to horses.

[blkgryphon]

Hi again,

Thanks to all for the advice. I had been looking at the EOS 60, as it happens. I really want at least 6 fps in burst mode, so I don't know if the other ones mentioned would work for me.

As for lenses, when I used to shoot with my old Canon AE-1, I used my 70-210 zoom for almost everything. I had a 55mm lens as well (as I recall...would have to dig it up to be sure), and those two lenses suited me very well. I would rather buy a couple of good lenses like those, if possible, rather than get a bunch of so-so lenses in a kit. The cheapest I can find the body only of the EOS 60 is $879. Is it possible to get even a good zoom for anywhere around $600? I could always keep my current camera handy for closer in stuff if I needed it until I could afford another lens. If I do get a lens, I definitely could use good image stabilization and any other "help the idiot out" stuff available!

Looking forward to hearing more from you folks.

Susan

[Tzetsin]

If you keep a look out for "EF-S" lenses you'll be able to get a much cheaper, smaller lens that typically have much more focal length spred than the EF line does. At the same time though, in a general sens the EF-S line are not as ruggedly designed (plastic vs metal) are slower (smaller minimum apertures) and the visual quality are lower (though still acceptable for most applications)

If you want "good" fast lenses though you'll have to put out the cash for it. A 70-200 f4L is ii is $1300 though there is a huge number of these lenses for much cheaper on the used market, as most people who get them upgrade to other lenses after a time. Its a fantastic lens and one I'd easily recommend for you. If you get it used, it will easily fit your budget. Dont be afraid to buy used lenses either, glass doesn't "wear out" and canon doesnt modify lenses for YEARS, and even when they do, its not by much. So if you get a 3 year old lens you can be sure that its very likely the exact same lens that you'd get brand new today.

The F4 isnt the worlds best low light lens, though its serviceable enough. Anything in that focal range that is better in low light is going to be significantly more expensive. The 70-200 f2.8 IS II is $2800 for example. There is a 70-200mm 2.8 NON image stabilized lens, but the extra aperture vs the loss of image stabilization isnt worth the trade in my opinion, though others may disagree. Its also $1500 and difficult to find used.

There are many other EF zoom lenses that have the focal length spread that would work for you, and their prices are much lower, but the image quality, build quality and speed will suffer a fair amount. Besides, you'll look pretty smart with the big white, red ringed lens plunked on the side of your 60D

[Preeb]

Originally Posted by veritasimagery

Not sure where you are getting your prices. B&H Photo, right now, sells the T2i for $629 USD

Canon EOS Rebel T2i Digital SLR Kit w/ EF-S/18-55 IS 4462B003

and the T3i for $699:

Canon EOS Rebel T3i Digital Camera Kit 5169B003 B&H Photo Video

Both come with the EF-S 18-55. There really is only a $70 price difference, and both are under $700.

That's why I didn't quote a specific price - it all depends on where and when you do your pricing. I just happened to have the site for a local camera shop open when I read that post. Since I've never bought any big ticket stuff from B&H or Adorama, I simply went with what I knew. Your price difference is about right since they typically only jack the price about $80-$100 for the 18-55 kit over the body alone.

[mrteacherdude]

There are some decent zoom lenses out there for about $600. Per your original post however, they may not really be satisfactory for some conditions you are likely to shoot in. I'm referring specifically to your reference to indoor action. You indicated you are interested in faster frame rates, I interpret that as action oriented. Action requires faster shutter speeds in the body and a fast focus motor in the lens. Low light requires good high ISO processing in the body and/or large aperture in the lens (ideally both to make sure all bases are covered).

The newer Canon bodies that have been discussed to this point are all pretty good at high ISO processing, and will handle fast focusing lenses just fine. But you can still run into problems it you are shooting in low light and trying to capture relatively dark objects (such as horses) that are moving quickly. If you are interested in trying to eliminate motion blur from your subject, you will probably be shooting at 1/500s or faster, and if the light conditions are poor as they often are at indoor arenas such as those found at fairgrounds, you are going to need to open up the lens.

This shot was taken in a very evenly, well lit indoor arena; f2.8, ISO 800, 1/640s, with a non-IS lens.



A smaller aperture would have required me to bump up the ISO and/or slow the shutter speed to maintain a reasonable exposure. While the camera is capable of producing good images at higher ISO, I prefer not to use those higher settings so I don't have to worry about noise. Slowing the shutter speed introduces the possibility of some motion blur around the feet, and increases the possibility of a completely blurred image due to my bad technique A small amount of motion blur isn't a huge issue, but I find that people in these types of situations are pretty straightforward in their photo needs, and have a strong tendency to prefer see their animal crisp and stopped in motion if they can get it that way. However, things may be different in the horse world, I don't know. It's easy enough to change the settings if people do want something a little more artsy.

While not obviously evident in the above photo, wider aperture lenses also allow you to have a shallower DOF which can help obscure other stuff in the background that can detract from the subject.

It should be noted that when I shot darker dogs under these same conditions, I needed to open up my lens and/or bump up the ISO, depending on how dark the dog was, to get a similar exposure. You may be able to get a general impression for this need if you note the dark areas of the dress and shoes of the handler are underexposed and lacking in detail; this would not look good for a dark dog. It should also be noted that I was able to go to a wider aperture because I was using a prime lens capable of f1.8. I chose my prime over my zoom for the above photo because I didn't need the zoom capabilities and I like the "wiggle room" to open up my aperture. However, later in the show when the ring increased in size and the audience grew, I wasn't as close to the action so I did need to go to the zoom.

The best zoom lenses on the market now will give you a maximum aperture of f2.8, and you'll pay for it. I own a 70-200 f2.8 L non IS, which I bought used for about a grand. I specifically bought the non-IS version because (1) it is significantly less expensive than the IS model of this lens and (2) IS is useless at high shutter speeds anyway, or so I've read and heard. Since IS is (allegedly) not useful at high shutter speeds, it is better for me to have the wider aperture than the smaller aperture with IS.

It should be noted that IS becomes a distinct advantage when shooting slow shutter speeds often needed for very low light conditions such as concerts or inside the home at night. If I were taking photos at a wedding, concert, musical, etc., I would definitely go for an IS version of the lens if I could afford it.

The shot below was taken in a dimly lit concert hall; 200mm focal length at f2.8, ISO 1600, 1/125s, non-IS. While I think the photo came out reasonably well, IS would have allowed me to slow the shutter a bit and thus allow more light to hit the sensor. It may have also allowed me to lower the ISO. Even if I kept the settings the same, the IS would have allowed much crisper images. I don't have experience with the f4 IS version of this lens so I don't know if I would have been able to obtain this image with it. I definitely don't think I could have obtained a shot like this with one of the $600 zooms.



Note that at no time in this post did I mention the use of a flash. Flash use can change everything, but are often not allowed. I'm also not sure if they would be very useful for high frame rate photography; I think I should try that out

[Tzetsin]

I just want to note here because the OP is planning on using this setup professionally.

There is a very good reason why professional indoor sports photographers pay top (top top) dollar for fast lenses. There is NO WAY your going to take great, well lit, sharp shots of moving horses of any color, indoors without flash (which you normally cant use) with a 600 dollar zoom.

The reason why I suggested the 70-200 f4 IS, is because the used market is saturated at the moment, the focal range is just right, its an "L" lens, so image quality is as good as it gets for zooms and its image stabalized. The image stabilization isnt going to help AT ALL indoors with fast moving subjects (running horses) but its the absolute cheapest professional zoom that will "mostly" do what she wants. If she could find the 70-200 2.8 version used, that would be even better, but they're a little harder to find.