# Best camera to purchase?



## dcmoody23 (Dec 31, 2009)

Hi, I'm 16 and I'm a SERIOUS art student (currently in high school).  I currently don't own a camera but have saved up some money and am looking to make a purchase.  I want something that will be good for sports photography, but at the same time is rather versatile for different types of photos (especially people & macro).  I am looking to spend around $1500, but because I want something that will last me and that I can use in my art portfolio and in art school while training with photography I will spend more if it is worth it.  I have been looking at the Nikon D90 for a while now but I'm concerned after reading reviews about a slow shutter speed (for sports)..  I am looking for both a camera and a lens or lenses, or a package where i can get a discount (but with good lenses please) would be great too.

Any help or suggestions will be much appreciated.

Thanks.


----------



## percent20 (Dec 31, 2009)

Just from research, your price point and my bias I would say get a D90 and a couple of extras with your $1500.


----------



## icassell (Dec 31, 2009)

I would seriously consider a clean used body which will leave you more to spend on glass.  I don't know the Nikon line, but a used Canon 40D can be had for the mid $500's if you look around.


----------



## iBats (Dec 31, 2009)

haha sports photography with a budget of 1500 bucks ahahahaha

a good fast 400mm lens can run you 6 grand, and if you want something with fast fps 4.5+ then you gotta spend at least 1600 on the camera

and dont forget the monopod hehe


----------



## percent20 (Dec 31, 2009)

icassell said:


> I would seriously consider a clean used body which will leave you more to spend on glass


100% agree with this. 

OP you are fortunate to have saved up 1500. I had to sell a bunch of my stuff to get to 375 to buy a Nikon D40 refurbished. I haven't had any problems with it so far and generally prefer factory refurbished things over brand new.

check Digital cameras, all other cameras and everything photographic from Adorama Camera for some good deals on cameras.


----------



## PhotoXopher (Dec 31, 2009)

iBats said:


> haha sports photography with a budget of 1500 bucks ahahahaha
> 
> a good fast 400mm lens can run you 6 grand, and if you want something with fast fps 4.5+ then you gotta spend at least 1600 on the camera
> 
> and dont forget the monopod hehe



D90 Body (4.5fps) = $800 shipped.
Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 or Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 = $800

Total = $1600


----------



## iBats (Dec 31, 2009)

sports he said, 200mm arnt that great

Canon EF Telephoto lens - 400 mm - F/2.8 - Canon EF

and his budget was 1500, and d90 wasnt fast enough for em...


----------



## dcmoody23 (Dec 31, 2009)

iBats said:


> haha sports photography with a budget of 1500 bucks ahahahaha
> 
> a good fast 400mm lens can run you 6 grand, and if you want something with fast fps 4.5+ then you gotta spend at least 1600 on the camera
> 
> and dont forget the monopod hehe



Okay first, I'm 16, and so laughing at my 1500 budget isn't exactly something I respect (although I will spend more)... this would be high school sports I'm photographing, too..  I'm just looking for something I can use in my portfolio.. A temp., not something I'm going to be using when I'm 50.


----------



## iBats (Dec 31, 2009)

i know you're 16, im 17 and also a serious amateur photographer im just saying that you have to realize sports photography is the most expensive form of photography, especially if you go pro, and fine im not telling you not to expand your portfolio, go ahead, just realize that 1500 bucks will get you a decent body and a decent lens, dont expect shots that will blow your mind


----------



## dcmoody23 (Dec 31, 2009)

Primarily looking for something I can use a learning tool, a cornerstone, a beginning.. I'm sure you all remember what camera broke you into the world of photography, and I doubt it was a camera with a $7100 lens...  Yours posts are rather insulting and degrading.. 
An F.Y.I. to you is that I was fortunate in inheriting over $10,500 that are in stocks, however I refuse to touch that money until the economy recovers...  So don't bother recommending me a $6,000 camera

I appreciate all of the serious responses, though.

The used camera sounds like a good idea, but I'm quite skeptic of spending some of my savings on something that would have no warranty. I'll be sure to look further into it, however, and appreciate your opinions.


----------



## dcmoody23 (Dec 31, 2009)

iBats said:


> i know you're 16, im 17 and also a serious amateur photographer im just saying that you have to realize sports photography is the most expensive form of photography, especially if you go pro, and fine im not telling you not to expand your portfolio, go ahead, just realize that 1500 bucks will get you a decent body and a decent lens, dont expect shots that will blow your mind



Okay, thanks.  I will keep the sports for personal entertainment & learning for now then and use something that can showcase my eye for phototraphy in my portfolio.  I didn't intend to use the sports photographs in my portfolio anyways.


----------



## PhotoXopher (Dec 31, 2009)

Why not?

Looks good to me:
James Rodgers on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Nikon D90 and 70-200 f/2.8 lens.


----------



## gsgary (Dec 31, 2009)

iBats said:


> sports he said, 200mm arnt that great
> 
> Canon EF Telephoto lens - 400 mm - F/2.8 - Canon EF
> 
> and his budget was 1500, and d90 wasnt fast enough for em...




It all depends what sport he wants to shoot, FPS don't matter i shoot sports all the time with 1D's and use one shot and 300F2.8L but it can be done with less
Old 10D and 70-200
http://gsgary.smugmug.com/Sports/Bramham-Horse-Trials-Canon-10D/Image00002/161364455_CXMVG-L.jpg

Old 10D and cheap 19-35 Cosina 
http://gsgary.smugmug.com/Cars/Roger-Albert-Clarke-Rally-2007/Image00023/578292032_MCwyG-L.jpg


----------



## DScience (Dec 31, 2009)

iBats said:


> haha sports photography with a budget of 1500 bucks ahahahaha
> 
> a good fast 400mm lens can run you 6 grand, and if you want something with fast fps 4.5+ then you gotta spend at least 1600 on the camera
> 
> and dont forget the monopod hehe




Wow, are you serious? This kid is 16, and in my opinion the fact he saved up $1500 by himself says a lot! He said he wants to shoot some sports, not make it on the cover of Sports Illustrated. Thus, he doesn't NEED a $6,000 lens RIGHT now...Why do you have to come in here and smash his hopes and dreams...starting off with a a D90 at 16 could lead to a professional career in photography, and down the road he could fork over the flow for the real pro gear.


----------



## dcmoody23 (Dec 31, 2009)

PhotoXopher said:


> Why not?
> 
> Looks good to me:
> James Rodgers on Flickr - Photo Sharing!
> ...



Wow, that's a great shot! That was really taken with a d90 and a 70-200 f/2.8 lens (runs about $800 you said)?  When I get home from work I'm definitely going to consider putting my order in for the two & see what I can find for deals..
Thanks a lot PhotoX!


----------



## DScience (Dec 31, 2009)

iBats said:


> i know you're 16, im 17 and also a serious amateur photographer im just saying that you have to realize sports photography is the most expensive form of photography, especially if you go pro, and fine im not telling you not to expand your portfolio, go ahead, just realize that 1500 bucks will get you a decent body and a decent lens, *dont expect shots that will blow your mind*



O....M....G

Obviously you know little about photography. ANY modern DSLR on the market is capable of producing images that will blow peoples minds away. The most important aspect to creating a great image is NOT the camera, or lens. It's the person pushing the button, behind the viewfinder.


----------



## Sam6644 (Dec 31, 2009)

I've been shooting college basketball this month with a Nikon D90 and a Nikon 80-200 /2.8 and I gotta tell ya, while the lens is fine, the body leaves a lot to be desired. 

The D90 frame rate is too slow, the focusing is too slow too. 

For anything else, the D90 is a awesome camera, but if you're shooting sports it's not great. 

For the record, on a APS-C camera body, a 200mm lens is plenty long for any sports you're going to be doing. That 200 becomes 300mm, and that's plenty for football and soccer, and more than enough for volleyball, basketball, and baseball. You can look around the multimedia page at The News Record link I have in my signature. We cover every sport at the University of Cincinnati and nobody owns a lens longer than 200mm. 

Buy a D300s


----------



## robertwsimpson (Dec 31, 2009)

I'd get a used canon 50d ($800), a 70-200 f4L (about $600), a 50mm f1.8 (about $100), and a monopod.  For $1500, that would be a pretty good start.  After that, I'd get the 1.4x teleconverter.  That will give your long lens a little more reach.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 31, 2009)

A lot of sports photography can be done with shorter lenses than a 400mm; in fact, on APS-C, 400mm is far too narrow in angle of view for MANY sports if you have credentials or on-field access. For basketball,volleyball,and wrestling, an 85mm f/1.8 lens is about right for many shots indoors. For track and field, a 400 is too narrow an angle for many events. "Sports" is a wide subject,and plenty of photos can be made from relatively close range. High school gyms usually have relatively poor lighting, and the newest trend is toward lighting indoor sports with balcony-mounted flashes triggered remotely.

I'd look for a used body to save a huge amount of money; high MP count is not needed. One lens I think you want to have is an 85mm 1.8 for its wide aperture and angle of view and focusing speed for indoor use. You can use it for basketball,volleyball,and night football, track and field, whatever. Again, a used on from KEH.com would save some money.

A 70-200 f/2.8 zoom lens would be handy for many sports situations, but it's not a 100 percent necessity. $1500 is a pretty tight budget for a body and 70-200 zoom, so I think a used 40D at $550, an 85/1.8 and a used 135/2 L Canon would form a pretty good kit for "most" sports you'd shoot in an American high school setting. You can shoot looser and crop-in at the camera to compensate for the lack of a long lens when shooting outdoors under decent lighting.


----------



## PhotoXopher (Dec 31, 2009)

Here's one example:
Sigma SG702002NI - 579306 - Tele Zoom - Sigma Zoom Telephoto 70-200mm f/2.8 II EX DG APO HSM Macro Autofocus Lens for Nikon Digital SLR


----------



## BuS_RiDeR (Dec 31, 2009)

dcmoody23... Don't get discouraged. It hard to start this hobby/obsession/profession because it can be so expensive.

I am by no means a professional, however, the D90 is a great camera (personally I use Canon).

From the research I've done and what I've taken from this forum and a few others... $1500 (maybe a little more) will get you a good setup to start with.

Look here for Nikon lenses and here for the cameras. Also Have a look at the Canon stuff. If you can, pick them up and hold them. Sometimes a camera/lens will look great on paper... But as soon as you hold it to actually take a shot... Well, lets just say that that some of them are made better than others.  

Things to look at IMO... Will it do what you want (within reason), build quality, price/value.

In the end, its up to you. But if this helps...  Great.


----------



## Sam6644 (Dec 31, 2009)

Derrel said:


> High school gyms usually have relatively poor lighting, and the newest trend is toward lighting indoor sports with balcony-mounted flashes triggered remotely.



man... and how. 


A guy that works for the media relations department at UC has one of those set-ups and it makes like a lot harder for everyone else not tuned into his rig.


----------



## iBats (Dec 31, 2009)

Oh my god, i started a flame war.....what have i done ale:

didnt intend on smashing hopes and dreams, and if they really are his hopes and dreams i doubt hes gunna let a pier squash them from the internet...., just giving him a reality check, and a heads up, also if he has a job 1500 bucks isnt that much, i make that in a month and a half working at a grocery store, keep in mind im also 17


----------



## Overread (Dec 31, 2009)

There is some good info on the 135mm f2 L on the Canon users group on Flickr (well worth checking out for canon related info) 

Flickr: Discussing Gallery: Canon EF 135mm f/2 L USM in Canon DSLR User Group
Flickr: Discussing Why do you like the Canon EF 135mm f/2 L lens? in Canon DSLR User Group
Flickr: Discussing Trade Show: Canon EF 135 f2L USM in Canon DSLR User Group

just be very carfull of them (especailly that Boldpuppy member) they have rather and addiction to that lens, but it does show that it can (and is) used well for indoors and outdoors sports.


----------



## Sharp Shooter (Dec 31, 2009)

iBats said:


> haha sports photography with a budget of 1500 bucks ahahahaha
> 
> a good fast 400mm lens can run you 6 grand, and if you want something with fast fps 4.5+ then you gotta spend at least 1600 on the camera
> 
> and dont forget the monopod hehe



He is 16 and it will be his first camera.  I doubt he will be shooting the BoSox for sports illustrated.  I would agree with a D90 but I am also Bias towards it.


----------



## KmH (Dec 31, 2009)

Sam6644 said:


> .... That 200 becomes 300mm.....


We wish! But, the 200 mm is still a 200 mm and will appear to give the same field-of-view a 300 mm lens on a full frame camera body would give.

However, being that it's still really just a 200mm lens you won't realize all the benefits of a 300 mm lens, like DOF effects from the lens to subject distance.


----------



## Dao (Dec 31, 2009)

I also agree with others that a used camera body is a good choice for limited budgets.

And if you are not planning to start shooting sports event right away, you do not need to buy the telephoto lens yet.  Just get a regular zoom or prime lens and start learning.  

Once you are ready, then look for what options you can have at that time.  (You may save up more for a better lens, you never know.)


----------



## iBats (Dec 31, 2009)

Sharp Shooter said:


> iBats said:
> 
> 
> > haha sports photography with a budget of 1500 bucks ahahahaha
> ...



yar har


----------



## PatrickCheung (Dec 31, 2009)

Dao said:


> I also agree with others that a used camera body is a good choice for limited budgets.
> 
> And if you are not planning to start shooting sports event right away, you do not need to buy the telephoto lens yet.  Just get a regular zoom or prime lens and start learning.
> 
> Once you are ready, then look for what options you can have at that time.  (You may save up more for a better lens, you never know.)



what he said!  when i picked up my camera, i was really looking into shooting macro shots and becoming a macro photographer... but now that i've experimented with other styles of photography... i find macro less appealing then... portraiture/people photography, landscapes, street photography... etc.  don't limit yourself to only shooting one thing!  get a d90 with the 18-105mm kit lens if that's the camera you want... it's got a really broad range which should fit most of your photography needs for now.  you might just find another area of photography you like just as much as, or even more than, sports photography!  at that point... you can choose what you want to get into and how much you want to spend. 

congrats on saving up the $1500... i'm 16 too and i can't seem to be able to save up more than $600... hahaha.  

and on what ibats said... money isn't everything, and you never know what you can do with what you have availible.  if you're really into sports photography you can make that work with the 70-200 D:  what's the point of having a 400mm lens and not knowing how to use it.  start off with something you can work with, learn your basics, and build on what you've learned.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Dec 31, 2009)

you might be able to shoot something like highschool basketball with a 50mm 1.8  something where you're able to get right in on the action to compensate for lack of lens reach... I think the most compelling shots are things like closeups of a face right before shooting the winning freethrow, or jacked up expressions when you're getting dunked over.  shooting that with a 50mm is hard if not impossible.  

I shot at a dolphins game from really good seats and my 55-250 wasn't enough reach to get the shots that I really wanted.  I got ok shots though... you just have to figure out the limitations of your gear and then make it work for you.


----------



## dcmoody23 (Dec 31, 2009)

Great, thank you all for all of your responses... 

After what Ive gathered here I think I'm going to get either a new D90 (or maybe swing for a new canon 50d) or find a higher grade used model (although as previously stated, I'm quite skeptical of getting something with no warranty that has been previously used).  And get a fair priced lens that I can use for reasonable versatility until I can explore what types of photography is specific that I'll be getting into.. (and what I'll need for lenses + equipment for optimal results)..
Thanks a lot.


----------



## Live_free (Dec 31, 2009)

Nikon d90 with the 18-105 and a 70-300 for 1.7k 

Nikon | D90 SLR Digital Camera Kit with Nikon 18-105mm VR |


----------



## Sam6644 (Dec 31, 2009)

Live_free said:


> Nikon d90 with the 18-105 and a 70-300 for 1.7k
> 
> Nikon | D90 SLR Digital Camera Kit with Nikon 18-105mm VR |



those lenses are trash for indoor sports.


----------



## keith foster (Dec 31, 2009)

I will add my .02 and tell you to go for it.  Nikon or Canon, D90 or 40D will be a great camera for you to learn with and it will be several years before you outgrow it.

Whichever make you decide to go with I recommend you get the highest quality lenses you can afford.  You will be able to use them when you upgrade and will last you a long time if well taken care of.

As others have said, fast glass is what you need for sports.  f2.8 in whatever focal length you decide will give you huge advantages in lower light.

Get a decent external flash and you are ready to go.  Have fun and good luck with your aspirations.  I am impressed you have $1500 to get you started.  Waaayyy more than I had to get started.


----------



## dcmoody23 (Dec 31, 2009)

Thanks a lot for you response!  It's nice to know that the money I put into lenses isn't going to just dissolve when I upgrade my camera in the future.. Now, I have a few quick questions if someone has the chance to answer them ...  Will a 200mm lens be able to focus on close objects (I know that may be a dumb question), and if not would it be worth it to spend the money on a macro lens?  I'd like to purchase just one quality lens for now & wait and save some more before I buy another..
& also is it worth it to spend the money on a lens that can shoot auto focus?  I'm guessing to do anything moving that would be a yes?


----------



## Sam6644 (Dec 31, 2009)

You're not going to be able to shoot sports without autofocus, thats for sure. 



maybe golf


----------



## dcmoody23 (Dec 31, 2009)

Well I've pretty much ditched the thought of sports as a subject of my work...  I will still do it for fun, but not anything serious...

Which is the better camera?   The nikon d90 or the canon 50d?  This may be like comparing apples to oranges but from my understanding canon has much better customer service and software than nikon..  Any thoughts on this?


----------



## JustForSneaks07 (Dec 31, 2009)

like those people said, get the D90 to start out with. Very good camera. Took a picture of the Kardashians with it last year and it came out great. And use a lens with f/2.8 aperture or larger for indoor sports. Good luck with your ventures kid. Keep sending photographs to different people like crazy and you'll eventually get someone to call you


----------



## Sam6644 (Dec 31, 2009)

dcmoody23 said:


> Well I've pretty much ditched the thought of sports as a subject of my work...  I will still do it for fun, but not anything serious...
> 
> Which is the better camera?   The nikon d90 or the canon 50d?  This may be like comparing apples to oranges but from my understanding canon has much better customer service and software than nikon..  Any thoughts on this?



They're not really a direct comparison. 

The 50D costs a good deal more than the D90. 

The 50D is made of metal and weather proof, but is $1400.
The D90 is cheap and good and only costs like $850 now. 

Buy a D90 and a lens with an fstop of 2.8 or better.


----------



## dcmoody23 (Dec 31, 2009)

Okay, I think I've found a really great deal..
Let me know what you think.
Canon EOS 50D (Body only) w/ 3 month warranty certified refurbished for $775 shipped
OR 
Nikon D90 New for about $800 shipped
Should I do it?  Or keep looking?


----------

