Help, I want to but a SLR camera, but not break the bank...

Right now I am looking for great pictures of my daughter. So many of the pictures will be indoors. I think the 50 mm will give me a lot more flexability, right?

I know I will be buying the long lens in a few years (when Lil 93 starts sports), but for now my shots will be close up.

I have some SLR experience from my sports days and from my yearbook days when I was in the classroom, but you are right, I am going to be experimenting like crazy.

Thank Tebow and digital pictures are free.

 

Congrats, man! I can't wait to hear how it goes for you.

And I would still recommend the 50mm, though Ragu's reasoning is sound. But I'm terribly biased because I prefer to shoot primes over zooms.

 

Anyone got advice on the Nikon D3000? Best Buy has it on sale for $499 on Black Friday but you can buy a package with the camera, a 55-200mm lens and a Nikon D-SLR Bag for $599.

What do you guys think? I'm basically looking for an easy to use SLR that will take sweet pictures at my wedding/honeymoon. If it could shoot sports for work, that would be cool too.

 

Don't know much about how it's normally priced, but I have a student who loves hers. The reality is, you can't really go all that wrong with any of these.

 

gonna mooch in on this thread.... I've been putting this off, both my kids play high school sports and I want to take some simple sports photos before they graduate. digital recommendations for a newbie that won't break the bank ($300-500?) and I'm willing to go the used route mentioned earlier.
Last year a free lancer shooting for the local paper wanted to charge me $20 a shot.

 

Don't waste your camera's life on work shots. If something happens to it while you're on the job, is your company going to pay for it? Of course not.

That's a huge problem in our industry .... the journalists care more about the product than those who own it.

If they know you're willing to pony up to buy a nice camera to get good shots for their product, they certainly won't ever go ahead and put any money into the product themselves.

It might improve your section but it just lets the beancounters continue to find ways to screw us.

 

Actually, I was planning on using it for work more so I can A.) Justify spending the money on it, B.) Get real use out of it and C.) Work out all the kinks so that, when I care about the photos i'm taking, they come out perfect.

 

I feel like I'm qualified to say, with some authority, that this is a bad idea. It makes sense for me to use my gear for work, because I'm a freelancer and that's how it goes. But when I was on staff as a writer, I used my gear all the time for the paper. It's hard on your gear, and you're giving away value to a company who should be paying you for that value.

Please, don't do it.

 

I agree on the work shots. I freelance so, for me, I'm getting real value out of each photo I take and the ability to shoot my own photos makes it significantly easier for me to pick up work with locals that don't really have staff photographers.

As for the d3000, I'd say look for a D40. I work at Best Buy now part-time (freelancing only goes so far in this market, sadly) and in our inventory we still have a couple for 349.99 kicking around the company. Skip the Black Friday crush and have an associate look one up for you, if it's anywhere in the district they can get it sent to you and just insist that they match the lowest price available.

It's a 6 megapixel camera so there are limitations as to your ability to crop and then make large (bigger than 8x11) prints, but if you're good about composing your shot in the viewfinder before you actually take your shot, that's less limiting than you'd think. Plus, 349.99 for a camera that would've cost you 549 three months ago is a hell of a deal, if you can find it.

Other than the megapixel limitation it actually gives the same, if not better, noise performance at ISO 800 and lower (above that the images are barely usable without some real heavy work in post with any lower end D-SLR)

I'd also go with the black tie protection on the camera. I know, I know, extended warranty and all that but Best Buy covers accidental now, so if you drop it, spill water on it, the kids get ahold of it, etc. they'll cover it for two years for around 100 extra (not sure on exact price, it's a sliding scale), which also covers the battery on top of the normal stuff. It's a replacement plan, as well, so if the camera craps out you'll get an equivalent model but you'll have to pay the price difference if it's being replaced with a more expensive camera.

If you can't find a d40 the d3000 is a good choice (the guide mode helps if you're clueless about SLR features) paired with a solid 75-200mm lens will give you a good zoom range but forget about shooting indoor or night sports without investing at least another $500 in a fast lens.

 

Same as above, try and find a D40 at your local best buy for that 349.99 price point. It depends on what kind of sport they play though. Football/Basketball/Volleyball you're just not going to get enough light for crisp action shots without investing in a fast lens.

The problem with any used camera is that most cameras only have a shutter life of about 10,000 clicks and most modern cameras are made up of lightweight plastic instead of more durable metal so a camera could have 250,000 miles on the odometer and you wouldn't know until it breaks a week after you buy it. If you get it second-hand make sure there's some sort of receipt/warranty card so you know it wasn't purchased too long ago.

If they do play indoor sports try the Canon G11 or S90. Both are point-and-shoots so you lose the interchangeable lenses and they don't have a huge magnification but they each have awesome lenses built-in (f/2.0 for the S90 and f/2.8 for the G11) that will give you reasonable shutter speeds for shooting action indoors or at night.

 

The G11 is on my Christmas list. I want one tremendously, and I own four SLRs.