Time to upgrade

[Pete28]

I currently have a Kodak easy share C195 camera. Unfrtunately the top of the screen is cracked and the picture quality is getting worse. So I am going to be in the market for a camera around xmas. Here are some of the things I am looking for in a camera, I would like a camera that I can change the lenses on. I do a lot of nature shots and a lot of animal bugs type shots so I would like to be able to shoot some of these without getting right up on the subject.. I would like a quick shutter speed for animals on the move. Lastly a camera that is on the same level as my pictures which would be a little better than a novice. Thank you all for any help.

Pete

[SusanH1970]

Do you have a budget?

[Pete28]

Sorry about that. My budget will be around 400-500.

[Biomech]

400-500 whats?

[FireDawg]

If $500 is your budget, you can pick up a Canon T3 12.2 MP w/ an 18-55 kit lens for that price. I personally do not own one (I have a T1i) but they have gotten great reviews. I dont think that you will be dissapointed.

[ceremus]

From the sounds of it you want a DSLR as they have interchangeable lenses and fast autofocus systems. By "fast shutter speeds" do you mean a fast shutter on a single frame or do you mean a camera that can rapidly shoot several shots continuously? (there's a difference). A point-and-shoot can do a fast shutter speed, but often a DSLR will have a great advantage over P&S's for shooting in continuous bursts.

For $500 you can get a Canon T3 as mentioned, a Nikon D3000 or D3100 are also possibilities. The bigger question after that is what lenses you're going to want. The kit lens will be generally effective for most things and good for you to learn on, but if you're going to be shooting wildlife from a distance you'll probably want some sort of telephoto lens.

And if you want to shoot bugs and flowers in terms of macro photography, you'll have some things to consider. Some lenses will advertise a macro ability, even many kit lenses do, but they don't do true macro, often not even as well as a point-and-shoot. To get better macro photography with a DSLR you have a few options. You can fit a close-up filter to an existing lens, you can use your lens with an extension tube, or go all out with a dedicated true macro lens.

[inkista]

Originally Posted by Pete28

Sorry about that. My budget will be around 400-500.

Is that your whole budget, including lenses? Or just for the camera body?

dSLRs are expensive pieces of kit, because the camera body is just the beginning of your system. Lenses can be just as expensive. In fact, a single lens can easily eclipse the cost of your camera body. Lenses, tripod, bag, flash---this stuff adds up. Are you really sure that a dSLR is something you can afford? Realistically, I think that in the end you're liable to end up spending $2000 or more to get the full system, including lenses. Not all at once, naturally, few of us purchase an entire system all at once. But this may be more of a money pit than you anticipate.

I leave you with my "a dSLR is not a P&S upgrade" lecture. It isn't meant to scare you off or intimidate you, but you should understand what you're getting into. A dSLR is a thoroughly inconvenient and expensive kind of camera. You want to be sure it's what you really want.

[Doug Pardee]

Originally Posted by inkista

Realistically, I think that in the end you're liable to end up spending $2000 or more to get the full system, including lenses. Not all at once, naturally, few of us purchase an entire system all at once. But this may be more of a money pit than you anticipate.

This.

I've seen a number of polls of "how much did you spend on your DSLR gear" or similar, and almost nobody says they spent less than $2000 (USD). The median tends to be around $5000. [Pick your jaw up off the floor.]

Then there's the cost of the digital darkroom: quality monitor, calibrator, software, printer, ink, paper, etc. — and you might need to upgrade your computer, too.

I went into DSLR very conservatively. I've bought:

• One low-end DSLR camera body
• One lens
• One lens hood
• One quality polarizing filter (Heliopan)
• A bunch of memory cards
• Some extra batteries
• A small camera bag

I already had from my film SLR days:

• Flash unit
• Tripod
• Camera strap

For the digital darkroom, I've bought:

• IPS monitor
• Calibrator
• Some software packages (PSE, Focus Magic, NeatImage, LightZone, idImager Pro)

I already had as a hand-me-down from my wife:

• Quality photo printer

I need to buy but haven't yet:

• Backup hard drive

I also had to upgrade my computer, but that was probably needed anyway.

I've bought a few books.

My point is, for the stuff that I bought that I didn't already have, I've spent somewhere between $2500 and $3000. And as you can see, I don't really have all that much. And there were some pricey things that I already had and didn't need to buy: flash, tripod, computer, and printer. And I don't have any subscriptions to Flickr or the like, either.

You might be able to cut $1000 or so off of my costs today, especially on the memory cards. But inkista isn't kidding when she says that a $2000 budget is a more realistic minimum.

[Pete28]

Thank you all for the great feedback. Sorry I was not more clear. $400-$500 dollars is my entire budget. In terms of fast shutter speed I mean able to shoot a burst of pictures very quickly for instance someone running or a bird flying. I was thinking in terms of possibly getting some thing that I can do upgrades to anytime. I understand technology increases daily. As with computers they often are obsolete after a few years due to the new ones coming out. Is it like that with cameras? I am doing so much research my head is going to explode. Thank you so much for fielding my noob questions.

Pete

[inkista]

Originally Posted by Pete28

... $400-$500 dollars is my entire budget.

Then I don't think you should be looking at dSLRs until you've saved up a bit more money (or at least realize how much more spending will be involved in getting the kit you want to shoot the subjects you're after). You current budget is enough to get a body and a kit lens, but probably not the lenses you need for what you want to shoot. You could get a very low-end old dSLR body in the $300-$350 price range, but a macro lens (for flowers/bugs) is about $400-$600. And a good birding lens with 400mm reach (what a lot of bird photographers say is the minimum you need) is going to be $800-$1500.

Rock-bottom, you could do macro with a $120 50mm f/1.8 and $85 extension tubes (but you're going to have to have some damn good field craft to keep bugs from flying/crawling off when you get as close as that setup forces you to to focus). And you could try to shot birds with a $150 cheap 300mm telephoto zoom (it's how I started), but this is still going to be over your budget, and you'll have a lousy keeper rate, because it'll be slow to autofocus as well as being softer than you'd want. As I said, dSLR photography is an expensive hobby to take up.

In terms of fast shutter speed I mean able to shoot a burst of pictures very quickly for instance someone running or a bird flying.

Ah. This is not what we mean by fast shutter speed. The terminology we'd use for this is "burst rate" or "burst speed". I will tell you as someone who shoots birds in flight with a camera capable of 6fps bursts, that the burst speed of your camera isn't nearly as important as your ability to time the shot well, and the lack of a shutter delay. Short controlled bursts are actually going to yield the best results. Higher burst rates simply mean you get more "in-between" moments captured; not that you have a better guarantee of capturing the action. You still need fast reflexes.

I was thinking in terms of possibly getting some thing that I can do upgrades to anytime.

Well, a dSLR system certainly counts as that.

I understand technology increases daily. As with computers they often are obsolete after a few years due to the new ones coming out. Is it like that with cameras?...

Yes, and no. With the camera bodies, the sensor technology changes and seems to go obsolete much like other electronic digital equipment, which is why I refer to them as the "most disposable" part of a dSLR system and possibly the least important decision you're going to make; aside from the lens mount you choose. The other half of the camera, though, is the lens, and this is where the technology doesn't move as fast, because we're talking more about optics than electronics. The lenses are where the majority of your money is going to be spent, and where the majority of the value will stay with you. Lenses do not depreciate or get superseded as quickly as camera bodies.