$2000 Photography equipment question/help.

[SpeedyVV]

I would like to take up photography/video as a hobby.

tl;dr

Let's say I can squeeze $2000 (USD) into the budget.

What photography/video equipment would you buy?

It would be great if you can suggest a specific make/model.

Longer version.

The only cameras I've ever owned were point and shoots. I was NEVER happy with them. probably a combination of skill and camera limitations.

I want to start taking and enjoying taking pictures.

Would like to start creating digital art really... for my own enjoyment mostly on a 4K screen... so the ability to combine photography and video would be nice.

For sound, I already have some music instruments I can use. So I am ok with that.

I am starting from pretty much from zero (equipment and knowledge/skill), but I would like the equipment to still be not limiting me for 2-3 years. But I am ok with me not reaching the potential of the equipment in 3 years.

I say that because, I really enjoy technology for technology's sake. Call me crazy, but that gives me pleasure. I don't mind having solutions looking for a problem if the tech is cool by itself.

So if you can put yourself in my shoes, what would you spend your $2K on? Camera, tripods, lenses, etc? not sure what else, but I hope you get the idea.

BTW, don't include things like computer hardware/software in the $2K. I have a separate budget for that. But if you think I am missing something in that subset, by all means let me know, because, I cant know what I might need since I am really in the dark other than I need a camera.

Also, please don't include education/training in the budget, but feel free to suggest that. Just don't reduce the budget on equipment to account for it..

BTW, it would be really cool if a camera could take ok 4K video, and cool if it can take some video at all.

I suspect that in 2-3 years 4K video will be a lot more feasible/cheaper, but hey if I can capture some 4K video awesome.

Specifics such as Cannon/Nikon/Model this or that would be really helpful.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

Well the first thing I will tell you is that photography and video are two really different markets and fields.
To get video done right, especially if you don't want all your shots shot on sticks will require a rig.

If you only want to dabble in video things get easier. Photography is expensive, video gets really expensive really quick. This isn't to say that it's impossible to do things on the cheap. Quite the contrary, but the less money you have to spend, the more limited you will be.

The other major part is that equipment is really based around the user. Each photographer has a different set of "go to" equipment that he/she uses. And other than putting in the time and learning the tools, there isn't an easy way to find out what those pieces of equipment are for you.

The other issue is how specialized in whatever field you want to get into. If "I" personally had to start over, I would probably spend a sizable chunk of the money on strobes and a bit less on the body and lenses. But if you never wanted to do portraiture, that expenditure would make zero sense.

Similarly, I have a $1300 pair of sticks, but most people would never need that, unless they are going to be a hardcore landscape/architecture nut or use it in a studio. Even the ballhead on a tripod can be specialized for what you want it to do. My ballhead is designed to lock down and be stable, but it isn't a fluid head (for video) it does have a dual panning function but it doesn't easily get into new positions. Which brings to specialization again. Tripod sticks for stills is different than for video. And even amongst those two things there is a big delineation between types.

So, for me personally I would probably buy a:
Canon 5D2 used for around $800-$900
50mm f/1.4 used $300
85mm f/1.8 used $300

Paul C Buff - Alien Bees B800 x2 used $250 each

And that there puts you at budget... that doesn't include needing to buy C-stands or modifiers. Which if you bought cheap but cost effective items would maybe be another $400 for two stands and two different modifiers. Then throw in another few hundred for the radio triggers. Probably looking at a total of $2600-$2700. Closer to $3k if you want a little bit of buffer space, you can't find what you want at the best price, or you want to have pricier modifiers. That also isn't including a CF card or sticks, or anything like that. $40 for a CF card, you can get started with $300 sticks plus or minus.

That would be plenty to get you started doing headshots and environmental portraiture. Heck, that's more than enough to do some serious photography. But if that's not the specialization you want to be in, then this setup wouldn't help you much.

5D2 does do video. Autofocus is admittedly not the best but if you're serious about video it doesn't matter and for portraiture you have a reasonable amount of time to get the shot. It was used extensively in a number of films including the first Avengers film. It does 1080p at 24p/30p.

You won't be able to find ANY camera in your budget that does 4K in terms of something producing at a commercial level. Basically the only thing in your budget that does 4K and costs under $2k is a GoPro. They're great extra camera and fantastic for getting shots in places you can't stick normal cameras, but that's about it. They have a fixed focal length (which is mostly fine), but if you wanted something other than wide angle, you're screwed. It also doesn't have a built in LCD (you can buy one) so framing is a bit more difficult as well.

 

[Zepher]

You could always get a video camera to shoot video.
I am selling my Canon XH-A1 camera kit since I am no longer mobile, http://www.usa.canon.com/app/html/HDV/XHA1/index.shtml
I have the camera, bag, Sony wireless lavalier mic kit, and decent tripod with a case.

I also have a Tamron 17-50 F/2.8 lens for sale as I sold my Canon 40D.

UnknownSouljer pretty much covered everything I would have said.

 

[jamsomito]

My suggestion would be to get a cheaper DSLR and spend a bit more money on a good lens, preferably something with a big aperture range (f/stop of 2.8 or lower). My biggest gripe when learning was that I could never get sharp pictures, usually because I didn't have the headroom with aperture to compensate for the low light I was accustomed to shooting in.

So, for example, find a used or new Canon Rebel series DSLR (T2i - T6i). They're all the same senors until this year, and they're all very good. Identical to the xxD line (50D, 60D, etc). They will do stills and video together so you can get a taste of both. Put some good glass on them and they'll take great pictures. My regret is not having more to spend on good lenses.

I'd almost recommend the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 lens - it's the best you can get for that camera body. However, it's pretty expensive. If you're learning, a variety of lenses might be a good idea so you can figure out your style. I'd get 3 or 4. A wide, standard, and telephoto zoom, and if you have money left over, a fast prime. The ones I'd recommend for this camera are:

10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM (wide) <-- cheap wide angle, decent optics, great for video
17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM (standard) <-- very sharp, okay for video, good aperture
55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM (telephoto) <- very sharp, STM is great for video, great IS
50mm f/1.4 USM (fast prime) <- great for low light, blurry backgrounds

 

[Dangman]

Surprised there aren't any Nikon recommendations yet. Oh well: count me in on the Canon side anyway. Even after three years with my DSLR, I still consider myself a DSLR newbie. I'm a very slow learner when it comes to photography.

I currently use the following setup:
Canon T3i
The Canon T5i is the T3i's replacement nowadays. But the T3i has been a great DSLR for me. So I have no doubt that you would be satisfied with the T5i.

Canon 50mm f/1.8 II
The classic Nifty Fifty. You can usually find it for around $100. It's a great cheap starter prime lens.

Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM FLD
The reason why I got this was because it performs very similar to the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM that jamsomito recommended. The Canon obviously performs better and is of higher quality but I really couldn't afford to spend the extra ~$300 at the time (Maybe ~$400 possibly). For ~$300 less, the Sigma is "good enough".

As you can see, the above setup is pretty geared towards budget DLSR users like myself.

An awesome Youtube channel that I recommend watching is DigitalRev TV. It's almost like Top Gear for DSLRs and cameras. They have lots of videos ranging from how-tos, tips, and reviews. In addition, they also do a series where they give professional photographers really crappy/shitty cameras and see what they can do:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7ECB90D96DF59DE5

Honestly, some of those cheap camera pictures comes out better than some of the pics I take with T3i. Just shows that experience and skills can compensate for poorer equipment.

 

[jamsomito]

Surprised there aren't any Nikon recommendations yet.

Yeah, good point. Nikon makes great cameras too, very comparable to Canon. I'm just familiar with Canon. Once you pick a system it's hard to get out of it because you usually invest in a lot of lenses and other gear (batteries, etc) that aren't compatible with the other system.

If you want lens choices, Canon or Nikon will probably be your best bet.

If you want 4k, maybe look into the Panasonic GH4, but it's pricey. You could probably get a used one with one lens for your budget. I'd still recommend the canon rebel series or similar though.

 

[northrop]

Surprised there aren't any Nikon recommendations yet.

That's because the Nikon crowd is out shooting

I'll echo what UnknownSouljer said above; it is almost impossible to recommend a start up set up for you, specifically, without actually knowing what you want to do with your equipment. 4K video is out for the reasons already mentioned above, and as far as the photo equipment is concern, as a landscape shooter myself, I'd go for the widest lens I could get my hands on. At this budget, I guess I would be looking at Sigma 10-20mm, Nikon d7000 (ideally, a full frame camera, perhaps I could score a d600 on a budget from a used market?) and whatever tripod/ballhead I can afford (maybe a Nikkor 35mm /1.8G if I had some $ left over).

That's a tip of the iceberg, though, and far from the setup I'm working with now.

But as mentioned above, this could be totally useless to you. For all we know, you want to focus your attention on macro photography, in which case, none of the suggested gear will be of any use to use.

Also, it doesn't matter if you go with Canon or Nikon. Both are very comparable systems, both having a top quality offerings. For most hobbyists the differences are mostly cosmetic. That being said, I strongly suggest you go to a nearby store, and play with each camera a little. Last thing you want to do, is spend $2k on a gear that you will find uncomfortable to use.

And lastly, I'd strongly suggest picking up "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Peterson.

 

[SpeedyVV]

OMG, this is really awesome reading... really helpful!

I will take this and start doing some research so I can start asking some more questions that I did not even know how to ask before ;-)

Well the first thing I will tell you is that photography and video are two really different markets and fields.
To get video done right, especially if you don't want all your shots shot on sticks will require a rig.

If you only want to dabble in video things get easier. Photography is expensive, video gets really expensive really quick. This isn't to say that it's impossible to do things on the cheap. Quite the contrary, but the less money you have to spend, the more limited you will be.

I do understand that all media is different, and since I am Canadian, that the "media is the message". ;-)

I have NO expectation of doing anything of production quality for quite some time, if ever, and that is mostly defined by my expectation of my skills, no the equipment :-(

BTW, what is a "stick" and "strobes" you keep referring to?

My wish is to do some digital media, so stills, video, digital art, sounds/music. But even if I find that is a dead end in terms of interest/ability, photography is definitely a hobby I want to take up.

It might change in 2-3 years, if my plans pan out, but then I will come back for an update question.

The other major part is that equipment is really based around the user. Each photographer has a different set of "go to" equipment that he/she uses. And other than putting in the time and learning the tools, there isn't an easy way to find out what those pieces of equipment are for you.

The other issue is how specialized in whatever field you want to get into. If "I" personally had to start over, I would probably spend a sizable chunk of the money on strobes and a bit less on the body and lenses. But if you never wanted to do portraiture, that expenditure would make zero sense.

Similarly, I have a $1300 pair of sticks, but most people would never need that, unless they are going to be a hardcore landscape/architecture nut or use it in a studio. Even the ballhead on a tripod can be specialized for what you want it to do. My ballhead is designed to lock down and be stable, but it isn't a fluid head (for video) it does have a dual panning function but it doesn't easily get into new positions. Which brings to specialization again. Tripod sticks for stills is different than for video. And even amongst those two things there is a big delineation between types.

Wow, I cant tell you how much what you just wrote cleared things up for me!

But I would like to add, that this recent interest, started by me using my Lumia 1020 phone!

So, for me personally I would probably buy a:
Canon 5D2 used for around $800-$900
50mm f/1.4 used $300
85mm f/1.8 used $300

Paul C Buff - Alien Bees B800 x2 used $250 each

And that there puts you at budget... that doesn't include needing to buy C-stands or modifiers. Which if you bought cheap but cost effective items would maybe be another $400 for two stands and two different modifiers. Then throw in another few hundred for the radio triggers. Probably looking at a total of $2600-$2700. Closer to $3k if you want a little bit of buffer space, you can't find what you want at the best price, or you want to have pricier modifiers. That also isn't including a CF card or sticks, or anything like that. $40 for a CF card, you can get started with $300 sticks plus or minus.

That would be plenty to get you started doing headshots and environmental portraiture. Heck, that's more than enough to do some serious photography. But if that's not the specialization you want to be in, then this setup wouldn't help you much.

5D2 does do video. Autofocus is admittedly not the best but if you're serious about video it doesn't matter and for portraiture you have a reasonable amount of time to get the shot. It was used extensively in a number of films including the first Avengers film. It does 1080p at 24p/30p.

You won't be able to find ANY camera in your budget that does 4K in terms of something producing at a commercial level. Basically the only thing in your budget that does 4K and costs under $2k is a GoPro. They're great extra camera and fantastic for getting shots in places you can't stick normal cameras, but that's about it. They have a fixed focal length (which is mostly fine), but if you wanted something other than wide angle, you're screwed. It also doesn't have a built in LCD (you can buy one) so framing is a bit more difficult as well.

I am glad, you recommended Cannon, as I might be able to buy some used/hand-me-down Cannon equipment from my brother-in-law down the road. He is a professional (successful) photographer and has mostly Cannon stuff, but since he told me some of the costs of his equipment, well OUCH!

On the 4K video, I just saw this on Engadget. Would that be an option? Even if down the road I would need to start all over? Could this be used as a tools in my toolbag? Again think hobby, but yes quality of image is important.

You could always get a video camera to shoot video.
I am selling my Canon XH-A1 camera kit since I am no longer mobile, http://www.usa.canon.com/app/html/HDV/XHA1/index.shtml

OMG that almost gave me a bonner! But that is way too much for what I expect to carry around and to pay for. BTW, did not even bother to check price, since it is targeted at professional I know it would be super expensive.

My suggestion would be to get a cheaper DSLR and spend a bit more money on a good lens, preferably something with a big aperture range (f/stop of 2.8 or lower). My biggest gripe when learning was that I could never get sharp pictures, usually because I didn't have the headroom with aperture to compensate for the low light I was accustomed to shooting in.

So, for example, find a used or new Canon Rebel series DSLR (T2i - T6i)...

Sharp pictures! You just said the magic word to my ears. Above all else that is what got me started thinking about getting a camera (a real one).

Thanks for those suggestions... will try to price something out in that range (UK version as I live in the UK)

... Even after three years with my DSLR, I still consider myself a DSLR newbie. I'm a very slow learner when it comes to photography.

I currently use the following setup:
Canon T3i
The Canon T5i is the T3i's replacement nowadays. But the T3i has been a great DSLR for me. So I have no doubt that you would be satisfied with the T5i.

Canon 50mm f/1.8 II
The classic Nifty Fifty. You can usually find it for around $100. It's a great cheap starter prime lens.

Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM FLD
The reason why I got this was because it performs very similar to the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM that jamsomito recommended. The Canon obviously performs better and is of higher quality but I really couldn't afford to spend the extra ~$300 at the time (Maybe ~$400 possibly). For ~$300 less, the Sigma is "good enough".

As you can see, the above setup is pretty geared towards budget DLSR users like myself.

An awesome Youtube channel that I recommend watching is DigitalRev TV. It's almost like Top Gear for DSLRs and cameras. They have lots of videos ranging from how-tos, tips, and reviews. In addition, they also do a series where they give professional photographers really crappy/shitty cameras and see what they can do:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7ECB90D96DF59DE5

Honestly, some of those cheap camera pictures comes out better than some of the pics I take with T3i. Just shows that experience and skills can compensate for poorer equipment.

Awesome, will consider those as well in my research.

That's because the Nikon crowd is out shooting

I'll echo what UnknownSouljer said above; it is almost impossible to recommend a start up set up for you, specifically, without actually knowing what you want to do with your equipment...

But as mentioned above, this could be totally useless to you. For all we know, you want to focus your attention on macro photography, in which case, none of the suggested gear will be of any use to use.

... That being said, I strongly suggest you go to a nearby store, and play with each camera a little. Last thing you want to do, is spend $2k on a gear that you will find uncomfortable to use.

And lastly, I'd strongly suggest picking up "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Peterson.

That is why I am so grateful for the replies... I had a feeling what I was asking was just too vague! Yet no one was condescending! Obviously not GenMay

The reality is worse, I don't really know what I want.

Best I can improve on is to say, hey a camera that can let me learn the basics of photography and video for a couple of years. I'm ok to have to start all over again then.

Great advice on going to a store to feel the camera. Did not think of it.

Will definitely pick up a book, so I might just pick that one up.

Again... thanks to all for your replies... it gives me hope that I might just be able to get started

 

[cyclone3d]

I personally like Pentax gear.

Soooo much available. You can use 40+ year old lenses on brand new cameras, unlike Canon, Nikon, and others which regularly change their mounts and make it impossible to use older lenses on newer cameras.

Pentax also has Shake Reduction built into the camera body so you don't have to spend extra money on each lens in order to get shake reduction.

Have a look at reviews. They also compare Canon and Nikon against Pentax Cameras in some reviews.

http://www.pentaxforums.com/

 

[UnknownSouljer]

OMG, this is really awesome reading... really helpful!

I will take this and start doing some research so I can start asking some more questions that I did not even know how to ask before ;-)



I do understand that all media is different, and since I am Canadian, that the "media is the message". ;-)

I have NO expectation of doing anything of production quality for quite some time, if ever, and that is mostly defined by my expectation of my skills, no the equipment :-(

BTW, what is a "stick" and "strobes" you keep referring to?

My wish is to do some digital media, so stills, video, digital art, sounds/music. But even if I find that is a dead end in terms of interest/ability, photography is definitely a hobby I want to take up.

It might change in 2-3 years, if my plans pan out, but then I will come back for an update question.

Wow, I cant tell you how much what you just wrote cleared things up for me!

But I would like to add, that this recent interest, started by me using my Lumia 1020 phone!



I am glad, you recommended Cannon, as I might be able to buy some used/hand-me-down Cannon equipment from my brother-in-law down the road. He is a professional (successful) photographer and has mostly Cannon stuff, but since he told me some of the costs of his equipment, well OUCH!

On the 4K video, I just saw this on Engadget. Would that be an option? Even if down the road I would need to start all over? Could this be used as a tools in my toolbag? Again think hobby, but yes quality of image is important.

Sticks is just a slang term for Tripod.
Strobe is actually an industry used term for Stroboscopic Light. The super short version is that it's a "studio" flash unit as opposed to small "Hotshoe Flash"es or "Speedlights" which are just tiny portable lights that you're probably more familiar with. You can actually start studio photography with Speedlights, but I know what it is that I personally want to do, and the cost of entry level studio strobes is actually pretty close to the cost of speedlights (Certain speedlights are actually MORE expensive than strobes... it's hard to justify those costs knowing what I know). And I would rather have the power and access to modifiers that Strobes give me rather than the portability and battery operation of Speedlights.

So my suggestions were basically based around what I want to do in order to demonstrate how specialized gear can get. Like I mentioned before, that would be more than enough to get started shooting portraits, headshots, environmental portraiture, etc. For a $3k entry point, that is seriously amazing.

Some notes about why I suggested what I suggested:
5D Mark II. It's really inexpensive at this point. The autofocus sucks, I will admit, but the picture quality is incredible if you know how to get the sensor to work for you (which you'd have to do with any camera, just saying). It's also full frame as opposed to a crop frame sensor. For portraits, I'd basically always want to pick the biggest sensor size I could.

50mm and 85mm. Basically I'm moving to prime only. Primes are lenses that have one focal length. That means they do not zoom. Their only disadvantage is that they don't have that "zooming" versatility. Every other thing about them is better though. They're sharper, faster, have less CA, better bokeh/shallower DOF (if you need it), and lighter than most comparable zooms. Why 50 and 85mm? Those are basically the two most important portrait lenses. As cruel as it is to say, if you're a portrait specialist and you can't get it done with those two lenses you should probably quit. Part of that is of course experience, and understanding the tools, but really more lenses just give you greater versatility. And of course different specializations need/want different focal lengths.

If you were serious about landscape like northrop, you'd probably at least want to have a 24mm on a full frame to start. It would probably be worth the $400-$500 or so to buy a 17-40mm f/4.0L (used) as probably your most used lens. If you wanted to shoot events and weddings then having a long telephoto would be important. On a full frame you wouldn't be able to buy EF-S lenses, so I would probably start with the 70-200mm f/4.0 (non-IS) for around $400 used.

Alien Bee Strobes... are well just entry level strobes. They can be found for $250-$300 which is less than a lot of Speedlights, especially the 580EXII and the 600EX (which is over $500....) They pack way more power than a speedlight and have access to every Balcar/AB mount modifier, which is a pretty big library.

===

If your Brother-In-Law is a serious photographer, it may be useful to get guidance from him, or if he'll let you, to borrow some lenses for an extended period of time just to get used to different focal lengths. Learning the exposure triangle and learning about focal lengths is probably some of the more important newbie things to do.



===



As far as the Panasonic GH4, yes it's an option for 4K. The body alone costs $1600 though and if you want the interface unit (which you do for video) then it's over $2100. If you're serious about video you'd want to have a 50mm and 24mm equivalent lens to start (those are not my recommendations BTW for anyone thinking of criticizing this, it's actually Vincent Laforet's recommendations. And no offense, but I would personally take his statements with more weight than most). So you'd have a body and without even a single lens you'd be over your $2k budget. If you're going to do video though, then you'd want an external monitor ($400), a rig of some sort (anywhere from a few hundred to well over $1k) and some sort of external SSD HD for recording the actual video on (a requirement for high bandwidth video, the SD or Compact Flash Memory isn't capable of doing it) for whatever the market rate is on SSDs (and how much you want to spend). A common tool for that is the Blackmagic HyperDeck Shuttle 2 which costs $323, not including the cost of the SSD.

So your $2k budget on a GH4 would have your budget not stretching very far. Without even blinking, you're looking at $4-$5k. It's cases like these where seriously if you can mootch off your brother-in-law and he's cool with it, I would. Sticking to Canon and borrowing lenses from will stretch your budget a lot. Much more than if you moved to Panasonic as a system and had to buy everything from the ground up. Of course you have to play that game of borrowing gear and not being annoying or cloying. But if you're lucky, he's open and wants to help you learn. If you're unlucky, then he's selfish and greedy with more than just tools, but with knowledge as well.

 

[northrop]

BTW, what is a "stick" and "strobes" you keep referring to?

Sticks - tripod
strobes - flash lights/external light sources

On the 4K video, I just saw this on Engadget. Would that be an option? Even if down the road I would need to start all over? Could this be used as a tools in my toolbag? Again think hobby, but yes quality of image is important.

It's definitely a solution, but this in itself would eat half of your budget... it also cannibalizes all of our suggestions so far, seeing as each one of us has centered around a DSLR gear.

But it's a solution worth taking a long hard look at. Expending on that, you can also look at some of their fixed lens solutions, ie LX100 and FZ1000

I personally like Pentax gear.

Soooo much available. You can use 40+ year old lenses on brand new cameras, unlike Canon, Nikon, and others which regularly change their mounts and make it impossible to use older lenses on newer cameras.

Pentax also has Shake Reduction built into the camera body so you don't have to spend extra money on each lens in order to get shake reduction.

Have a look at reviews. They also compare Canon and Nikon against Pentax Cameras in some reviews.

http://www.pentaxforums.com/

Yup... in fact, Nikon has changed its mount a total of 0 (that's a Zero, spelled with a "z") since its inception in 1959, and you can freely use the lenses on today's bodies just fine (with some exceptions for exotic lenses, like a Nikkor 6mm that require a mirror lock to be used with). Hell, Nikon Df was pretty much built around using legacy lenses. That being said, an AF will only be supported on the bodies with the built in motor. Canon changed its mount once, in '87. That's Pentax marketing right there at its best, where 0 and 1 are known as "changing regularly".

With that said, yes, the current Pentax bodies offer shake reduction at the sensor stage, unlike Canon/Nikon offering that require a lens with an additional motor.

 

[IdiotInCharge]

This is actually a toughie-

with a ~$2000 budget, it's very, very tempting to try and fit a full-frame camera in there. The challenge of course is that unless you go with something limited/outdated like the 5D II mentioned above, with poorer AF and IQ in lower light compared to modern Canon (6D, 5D III) and Nikon (D750, D810) cameras, you cannot also get a decent lens and lighting setup.

And that brings one to the question: what kind of photography do you want to try first?

 

[Oklahoma Wolf]

And that brings one to the question: what kind of photography do you want to try first?

That really is the question to answer first. There are many ways to blow $2k and end up unsatisfied with this hobby.

Personally, I started with a D5100 and the 18-55mm kit lens for $650. Because I do an awful lot of low light shooting and have a low budget, I've been accumulating old AI and AI-S fast prime lenses. The problem is, the D5100 won't meter with those lenses, so the D7000 was really a better choice for me. But it's a catch 22, because the price difference put the D7000 out of my reach at the time.

Next year I hope to overhaul the whole system and toss the APS-C format to the wind. I need full frame for the low light shooting I do, and I'd like fast (f2.8 at least) zoom lenses that autofocus. On a tight budget. So, I'm looking at going to a D750 (D610 if I can't afford it) and coupling it to some older Nikon AF 2.8 lenses... the 80-200 and 35-70.

Because I do no people shooting inside, I have bought exactly zero strobes, flashes, or associated gear. I don't need that stuff... I'm always outside somewhere. I do some inside shooting for power supply reviews, but that doesn't require much in the way of extra gear.

I'm actually not sure how I'd do things if I were getting in today, knowing what I know now. The gear I need to try to get next year was way out of my reach in 2013 when I got the D5100. It's just that lenses that do well in low light are rarely cheap unless they're old, and on the camera side full frame is always better for low light than APS-C.

 

[SpeedyVV]

That really is the question to answer first. There are many ways to blow $2k and end up unsatisfied with this hobby.

Is it really possible to blow $2K on a camera and still be unsatisfied coming from a phone camera? God I hope not!!!

Mind you, your point makes complete sense to me.

If I had to predict my main focus, would be

1. Outdoor urban shots (think busy streets, skateparks, etc)
2. urban portraits... individual people in an urban context... e.g. a pretty girl walking by an ugly city street/building... a bum sleeping by a beautiful building/background... flaming fag by a fruit stall
3. urban indoor/night shots... clubs... shopping malls... night traffic...
4. more like a nice to have: holiday pictures... not for art work, but more like photo albums of holidays

One additional question... DSLR... mirrorless... full frame

Can someone tell me pro/cons? differences?

PS: My words were not chosen to offend anyone... just to give you an insight into the kind of digital artwork I want to start with.

 

[Anh N.]

From what I understand, and others feel free to correct me
Full Frame:
Adv: a little better on shallow DOF, light gathering capability (so normally a bit better shooting at low light), usually a bit better build quality.
Disadv: higher cost, normally larger body, heavier

APS-C:
Adv: cheaper than full frame, lighter, offer more "reach" for the same focal length
Disadv: usually entry DSLR for most people (e.g. Canon Rebel series), thus less options, less manual control features on camera buttons/wheel. Lesser build. (Also see adv for full frame)

Mirrorless:
Adv: Electronic View Finder (EVF) is very useful for beginner. As you change your exposure triangle, you are able to see the change in real time in your view finder. What you see is what your final image will look like (imagine shooting in Live View on DSLR all the time). Lighter, smaller than most DSLR. This is best use, imho, for landscape or portrait, where you have time to setup your shot.
Disadv: EVF (a few millisecond) also gives a small lag, stutter, compare to Optical View Finder (OVD) in term of seeing and when it appears in EVF. Focus is also slower than DSLR. It is not ideal for shooting bird in flight or high action sport. Not ideal, but doable.

Based on what you said above for your needs, here is my recommendation. As I am only familiar with Canon side, other will chime in for Nikon equivalent:
1. Get Canon 6D, full frame, new (through Greentoe reverse auction). A local photography club member was able to get an offer (from a reputable seller) to sell her a new 6D for $900. Or a used one for around $1k on For sale forums.
2. For urban portraits, I would go with the Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM ($350 new, $250 used) for portrait. Also get a Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM Lens ($150 new, $100 used) for walk around street photography.
3. For a Jack of all trade, you can get a Canon ef 24-105mm f 4l is usm. This is a very good L lens for a walk around lens. It is normally sold as part of the kit with Canon full frame camera, and a lot of people separate it out to sell as they have similar or better lenses. If you are patient and search the for sale forum on FM or POTN, you can sometimes find it for under $500.
4. Spend the rest of a semi-ok tripod for landscape.

Whatever you end up with, I'm sure it will be fine for all beginners. Most new cameras now a day will provide exceptional IQ. Just remember, you dated your camera bodies, but married your lenses. I hope it help. As always, with the disclaimer, I'm only a hobbyist and this is only my opinion.

 

[cyclone3d]

Yup... in fact, Nikon has changed its mount a total of 0 (that's a Zero, spelled with a "z") since its inception in 1959, and you can freely use the lenses on today's bodies just fine (with some exceptions for exotic lenses, like a Nikkor 6mm that require a mirror lock to be used with). Hell, Nikon Df was pretty much built around using legacy lenses. That being said, an AF will only be supported on the bodies with the built in motor. Canon changed its mount once, in '87. That's Pentax marketing right there at its best, where 0 and 1 are known as "changing regularly".

With that said, yes, the current Pentax bodies offer shake reduction at the sensor stage, unlike Canon/Nikon offering that require a lens with an additional motor.

Hrmm.. I was sure that Nikon had changed something about their mount that messed with some regular AF lenses.

If not, then I have been corrected and will remember that.

Actually, just looked it up here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_F-mount

Compatibility

The F-mount has a significant degree of both backward and forward compatibility. Many current autofocus F-mount lenses can be used on the original Nikon F, and the earliest manual-focus F-mount lenses of the 1960s and early 1970s can, with some modification, still be used to their fullest on all professional-class Nikon cameras. Incompatibilities do exist, however, and adventurous F-mount users should consult product documentation in order to avoid problems. For example, many electronic camera bodies cannot meter without a CPU enabled lens, the aperture of G designated lenses cannot be controlled without an electronic camera body, and non-AI lenses (manufactured prior to 1977) can cause mechanical damage to later model bodies unless they are modified to meet the AI specification. Many manual focus lenses can be converted to allow metering with consumer Nikon bodies by adding a Dandelion chip to the lens.[1]

---------------------------------

So some bodies will not work at all with manual lenses, and some bodies can be damaged by older lenses unless the lenses are modified.

Sounds compatible to me.

Same with Canon. Before FL and then FD, there was an "R" mount in which you could possibly damage a camera or lens if mounted on an FL or FD body.

https://www.cameraquest.com/canonflx.htm

And then they went to EOS, which is definitely a better mount but with no backwards compatibility.

In any case, I was wrong about them changing regularly, but they did make changes that pretty much obsoleted their older lenses.

 

[SpeedyVV]

OK Based on the info so far here is my short list:
1. £1,142.00 Canon EOS 6D
2. £949.00 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4
3. £599.00 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G7

I think therefore I will go with choice #1 Cannon EOS 6D

Maybe in a couple of years Cannon will come out with a 4K body. By then I might actually learn a couple of things that might be worth shooting in 4K

Does this look like a solid choice? Including Cannon's recommendation for lenses?


----------------- Cannon Live chat --------------------------

Rui: Hi Paul, can you help me understand the diff between 7D Mark II vs 6D?
Paul: Of course I can.
Rui: Also I see a promotion for the 7D Mark II
Paul: Please find the Link to the Canon EOS 7D Mark II Lens Cashback Promotion
Paul: http://www.canon.co.uk/lens-cashback/eos-7d-mark-ii/
Rui: so which one is better? ;-)
Paul: They are actually two very different cameras and thus used for different reasons. The EOS 7D Mark 2 is used primarily for sports and wildlife (or action) due to its fast focusing and frames per second along with other powerful features. The EOS 6D by comparison is used more for landscapes and portraits due to its full frame sensor. What kind of photography are you wishing to pursue?
Rui: If I had to predict my main focus, would be 1. Outdoor urban shots (think busy streets, skateparks, etc) 2. urban portraits... individual people in an urban context... e.g. a pretty girl walking by an ugly city street/building... 3. urban indoor/night shots... clubs... shopping malls... night traffic... 4. more like a nice to have: holiday pictures... not for art work, but more like photo albums of holidays Would love also to have good Video!
Paul: Ok sounds like a great choice of photography! Both feature full HD video, but based on your initial needs I would edge towards the EOS 6D.
Paul: As your photography tends to lend itself to more detail and wider angle work.
Rui: What about video quality of the 2?
Paul: Due to its sensor, you will find the EOS 6D to be more suitable for higher quality video.
Rui: Awesome, looks like the 6D it is. Thank you for your help.
Paul: You are most welcome.
Paul: Is there anything else I can help you with today?
Rui: Suggestion for 1-2 lenses?
Paul: The kit lens is very good for your initial needs - either the 24-70 f2.8 or the 24-105mm f4.
Paul: Here are the lenses:
Paul: http://www.canon.co.uk/for_home/pro..._lenses/standard_zoom/ef_24-105mm_f4l_is_usm/
Paul: http://www.canon.co.uk/for_home/product_finder/cameras/ef_lenses/standard_zoom/ef_24-70mm_f2.8l_usm/
Rui: So one or the other right? And if I were to get a 2nd?
Paul: Yes, as the second I would suggest a prime lens which would be great for your portrait shots, the following is a very popular choice with this camera:
Paul: http://www.canon.co.uk/for_home/pro...andard_and_medium_telephoto/ef_50mm_f1.4_usm/
Rui: great. Thanks again... take care Paul. very helpful.

----------------- Jessops Live chat --------------------------

Radek: &#8206;16&#8206;:&#8206;29&#8206;:&#8206;27 Hi how can i help you today?

Rui: &#8206;16&#8206;:&#8206;30&#8206;:&#8206;31 Hi Radek, I'm looking for a camera/video and narrowed to 3 choices... wonder if you could make a suggestion

Radek: &#8206;16&#8206;:&#8206;31&#8206;:&#8206;03 sure

Rui: &#8206;16&#8206;:&#8206;31&#8206;:&#8206;20 Would like to start creating digital art really... for my own enjoyment mostly on a 4K screen... so the ability to combine photography and video would be nice.

If I had to predict my main focus, would be 1. Outdoor urban shots (think busy streets, skateparks, etc) 2. urban portraits... individual people in an urban context... e.g. a pretty girl walking by an ugly city street/building... 3. urban indoor/night shots... clubs... shopping malls... night traffic... 4. more like a nice to have: holiday pictures... not for art work, but more like photo albums of holidays Would love also to have good Video!

the 3 choices so far (but open to others) are:
1. Canon EOS 6D (awesome camera?)
2. Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 (awesome 4k video?)
3. Panasonic Lumix DMC-G7 (newer 4k video?)

Radek: &#8206;16&#8206;:&#8206;35&#8206;:&#8206;20 well Panasonics one are micro 4/3 sensors so much smaller then 6D , ok they shoot 4K video but do you really need it? 6d will be much better for portraits and street photography plus you will have a massive collection of lenses to buy after

Rui: &#8206;16&#8206;:&#8206;36&#8206;:&#8206;57 Just bought 4K TV hence the interest. Need? No ;-)
so 6D is a much better camera right?

Radek: &#8206;16&#8206;:&#8206;38&#8206;:&#8206;06 I would buy this one yes actually I want one , GH4 could be better for videos but for sure not for taking pictures

Rui: &#8206;16&#8206;:&#8206;38&#8206;:&#8206;57 6D does ok 1080p video?

Radek: &#8206;16&#8206;:&#8206;39&#8206;:&#8206;28 yes full hd

Rui: &#8206;16&#8206;:&#8206;41&#8206;:&#8206;32 alright... looks like 6D will do as great photography, and 1080p, so I think I will lean towards that, as I really don't want to miss out on best photo quality... mind you I am coming from smartphone... and hate every shot I've taken with them ;-)

thanks a lot for your help.

 

[Anh N.]

OK Based on the info so far here is my short list:
1. £1,142.00 Canon EOS 6D
2. £949.00 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4
3. £599.00 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G7

I think therefore I will go with choice #1 Cannon EOS 6D

Maybe in a couple of years Cannon will come out with a 4K body. By then I might actually learn a couple of things that might be worth shooting in 4K

Does this look like a solid choice? Including Cannon's recommendation for lenses?
-

They are solid choices. Altho, I would search for used gears to save some money.

 

[bigk]

Craigslist is your friend btw

 

[MrGuvernment]

As northrop noted, try to get hands on the camera's, i am the type i love the weight of battery grips and large heavier bodies..

unknown hit it dead on with everything else.

Canon 70D or 7D MII if speed is a priority, 70D as many will note it is great to have the touch screen while filming as you can change focus points using the touch screen...

Guess it comes down to features over all but since you said skate parks and such, speed may be important.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/cameras/canon/6d/vs/canon/70d/
APS-C are fine and you still have a ton of control on your shots, unless you literally are a pro making thousands per picture, you wont notice the difference between a APS-C and full frame controls.

vistek.ca
henrys.com



Both do excellent video as well, i would get the 18-135mm kit lense with either kit, it is turning out to be a fantastic kit lense and for $350 can't go wrong.

You may want to head over to

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=144

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/

Best forum i have ever found for photography.

i would say get a 70D over a Canon 6D.

Myself i am about to buy a 7D Mark II.

If you can get a used 5D Mark IV even those are still kicking ass apparntly and can go for around $1000 if your lucky.

Comparison threads

6D or 7D mark II
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1428847 - if speed matters..

The 6D is a low light monster and will produce awesome images, but the AF on the 6D while very good is not close to what the 7D can do. Unless you will be shooting mostly at night the 7DII will far surpass the 6D for your needs. The 7DII is a master for AF and speed which is what you need the most for that type of shooting. I understand the image quality of the 7DII has also improved over the 7DI so that is the way to go.

Focus point sensitivity - 5D3 vs 6D
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1429839

6D or 5D Mkiii?
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1421691

5D MkII vs. 6D
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1411439

Of course dpreview, great source of reviews
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53686374

 

[zetachi]

first off I'd recommend going into a local camera store. When i first got into photography that was the best advise. Nicon/Cannon are the big 2 when it comes to DSLR but they are also larger cameras. I tried both but settled on an Oly, found it fit my hands better and felt more comfortable. Buy used first. There are many camera specific forums where you can get great deals. Most photographers are like PC enthusiasts and keep great care of their gear. Also check out http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum and http://www.dpreview.com/ fredmiranda has lots of used equip for sale.

 

[SpeedyVV]

Actually, now that I decided NOT to get into 4K video option, I'm having 2nd thoughts (kinda) about the 6D.

my statement "Maybe in a couple of years Cannon will come out with a 4K body", made me thing that maybe I should start out with a more entry level Cannon body, and invest in better lenses, THEN look at the state of the 4K market in 2 to 3 years.

I will reread all these replies again tonight, cause there was lots of good info there, and also figure out what options to narrow down to.

Might as well check the whole Cannon landscape before pulling the trigger.

£279.00 Canon EOS 100D
£414.00 Canon EOS 700D
£739.00 Canon EOS 70D
£1,142.00 Canon EOS 6D

So a really wide range to slide in some extra lenses and other gear as some have suggested!

BTW, I get the value of "used", but I would only buy used if it was from someone I knew because of my OCDish thoughts, for items that I will touch... not like a Graphics card, or RAM.

Since I am looking at a ~£1500.00 budget, I'll see what I can pack in for that budget, and then go to a store, as some have suggested and see which ones feel right.

 

[IdiotInCharge]

Here's one thing that made me go from a 60D (70D predecessor) to the 6D:

It has the ability to AF in very low light, in addition to it's very high IQ at higher ISOs.

That's why it's a 'low-light monster'.

You can get by with inexpensive lenses to start; Canon's new 50/1.8 STM (US$125) is quite nice, as is the 85/1.8 USM, and if you can get the 6D with the 24-70/4L you'll be set for a wide-range of subjects including closeups.

When you figure out what it is you want to do, you can then invest in better glass; assuming that you want to move on to 4k (likely to be a feature in the upcoming 5D IV), you can use all of your lenses, and all of the lenses I listed easily exceed the sharpness needed for 4k video.

 

[MrGuvernment]

Canon 7D Mark II vs 6D - Which is better?
http://www.digitalrev.com/article/canon-7d-mark-ii-vs/Mjg2MTIxMzA0

 

[madFive]

^^Yeah, I would say with your budged you should spend over half ot if on lenses. Glass is much more important than the body, so you'll want to invest in lenses at top-priority. And I'm guessing you'll want to upgrade your body in a few years anyways. And go for good glass, not the kit lenses.

 

[SpeedyVV]

^^Yeah, I would say with your budged you should spend over half ot if on lenses.

Well, the 70D is right about half my budget. Are the lenses below what you call kit lenses?

Some prices online:

Canon EOS 6D Digital SLR + 24-105mm f/3.5-5.6 STM IS Lens
£1499.00

Canon EOS 70D Digital SLR Camera + 18-135mm IS STM Lens
£951.00

Canon EOS 70D Digital SLR Camera + 18-55mm IS STM Lens
£767.00

Canon EOS 70D Digital SLR Body Only
£739.00

 

[IdiotInCharge]

^^Yeah, I would say with your budged you should spend over half ot if on lenses. Glass is much more important than the body, so you'll want to invest in lenses at top-priority. And I'm guessing you'll want to upgrade your body in a few years anyways. And go for good glass, not the kit lenses.

'Good' glass ain't cheap; a decent lens, say the 16-35/4L, 24-70/4L, or 70-200/4L IS is half the budget (~US$1000), and the L primes are the same or more in most cases, as are the f/2.8 L zooms and the longer zooms.

That's why I recommended finding a 6D kit with the 24-70/4L. The lens is best in class and versatile while being relatively light and compact, and can be supplemented by an inexpensive fast prime or two for a relatively complete solution.

 

[madFive]

^^Yeah, I would say you'd be better off getting one good piece of L glass, like a 24-70, then getting a less expensive camera body. You can easily blow $1-2k on a really good zoom lens. Prime lenses can be much better bang for buck, but they require more work and skill to use.

As several have said before, we really need to know what subject matter you want to shoot before recommending a lens, as most of the good ones are specialized to specific subjects. Wider lenses for landscape and architecture, medium for street-photo & group portraits, med-long for solo portraits, and telephoto & macro lenses for wildlife & sports.

But just starting out, it might be a good idea to get a good zoom like a 24-70, and see what ranges you use the most before you decide where to go next.

Is it really possible to blow $2K on a camera and still be unsatisfied coming from a phone camera? God I hope not!!!

Mind you, your point makes complete sense to me.

If I had to predict my main focus, would be

1. Outdoor urban shots (think busy streets, skateparks, etc)
2. urban portraits... individual people in an urban context... e.g. a pretty girl walking by an ugly city street/building... a bum sleeping by a beautiful building/background... flaming fag by a fruit stall
3. urban indoor/night shots... clubs... shopping malls... night traffic...
4. more like a nice to have: holiday pictures... not for art work, but more like photo albums of holidays
....

Oops, this is the info I was looking for and missed earlier. Yeah, I'd say one really good all-purpose like a 24-70 would be perfect for your street-photo ideas. If there's any way you can get the f/2.8 instead of the f/4 that would be better too. The wider end of 24-70 is good for architecture, and the closer end is good for portraiture. But yeah, the more you shoot and look at other people's work, the more you'll find yourself wanting to branch into other areas, and as you learn what lenses go with which subjects you'll find yourself wanting to pick up more lenses to cover those areas. It's definitely an expensive hobby once the obsession fully sets in, but it looks like you're starting at a good place.

 

[SpeedyVV]

Ok, I am getting really lost and can't really grasp all the lens lingo..

This post really helped though, with what I would consider essential for my purposes hihglighted:

10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM (wide) <-- cheap wide angle, decent optics, great for video
17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM (standard) <-- very sharp, okay for video, good aperture
55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM (telephoto) <- very sharp, STM is great for video, great IS
50mm f/1.4 USM (fast prime) <- great for low light, blurry backgrounds

If it is not too much to ask, can you folks please go to http://www.jessops.com/ and make your suggestion for something up to £1500.00?


Here is my attempts:

 

[Anh N.]

That Canon EF-S 55-250mm will NOT work on the 6D. Canon full frame cameras only take EF lenses, NOT EF-S.

 

[madFive]

Sorry, but those lenses are all pretty horrible. You should generally avoid any zooms that have a variable aperture if you can, so those with "f/4-5.6" are ones you want to avoid if possible. Look for ones with just one number there like f/4 or f/2.8. There are exceptions, and the variable aperture is unavoidable in certain areas like telephoto without breaking the bank, but with your budget & subject ideas I think you'd be better off just geting one good lens like a 24-70 f/4 or f/2.8 if possible.

 

[madFive]

BTW, I know we haven't had much input from the Nikon side - no time to do a bunch of lookups right now, sorry.

But Nikon just came out with a really good all-purpose 24-120mm f/4 that has been getting rave reviews. I would say pairing that with a D600 or D7000 would be another amazing starter setup for Speedy.

Edit - oops, that's not the right lens for D7000, I'll have to look up what the best crop zoom would be. Think there's an 18-100 or something like that which should go great with a D7000. Or you could stick with the 24-120 f/4 or 24-70 f/2.8 to future proof a little more.

You should definitely go to some camera stores and handle them all before you pick a brand. For me Nikon has better ergonomics and better control layouts on their bodies, which is why I went with that brand when I started into DSLR several years ago.

 

[cyclone3d]

Ok, I am getting really lost and can't really grasp all the lens lingo..

This post really helped though, with what I would consider essential for my purposes hihglighted:


If it is not too much to ask, can you folks please go to http://www.jessops.com/ and make your suggestion for something up to £1500.00?


Here is my attempts:

Can't see your pics or whatever at work, but here is my go at it.

Pentax K-3 II (body) for 769 - preorder. The original K-3 is a bit cheaper.
Pentax DA 17-70mm f4 AL SDM for 449
Pentax 50mm FA f1.4 for 299

That brings it up to 1517, but a fast 50mm is nice to have for portraits and other pictures where you want to easily blur the background.

That would be a very very nice starter set.

I have the older mid-range K-30 as well as the K-01 mirrorless and a huge number of lenses which include pentax, 3rd party, and modified to fit by me lenses including a lovely Olympus 55mm 1.2

The K-01 I mostly use exclusively for all-manual lenses and it works very very well for super fast lenses as well since it has an overlay on the screen that highlights the in-focus objects.

The 50mm FA f1.4 lens is a pretty sweet lens as well.

The 10-17 fisheye lens is one of my favorites as it works very well for ultra wide with very little fishyness at the long end and makes crazy sweet fisheye pics at the short end.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

(I'm sorry for using photography/camera lingo. If you want a basic lens primer, read below first, if something doesn't make sense in this first part, it is probably explained below)
--------------------------------------------------------
My first suggestion: Don't buy any photography equipment new.

Yes the new car smell is great and opening a brand new camera box is like Christmas, but you can save a massive amount of money by not buying new. Camera equipment, so long as it isn't handled terribly, basically lasts forever. There are still people shooting with Leica M3's that are over 50 years old. The same can be said for glass. All of these recent cameras and lenses that we're talking about are constructed reasonably well. As long as it hasn't been dropped or otherwise bashed in, doesn't have haze or fungus (from humid environments), or a manufacturers defect, you're good to go.

That's why all the stuff I listed before was "used" price. There is no advantage to going new other than "no one has handled it" and the warranty, which is pointless anyway as all camera manufacturer warranties only cover manufacturer defect and not user mis-use. If any camera product is over 6 months old, been regularly used, and hasn't exhibited manufacturers defects then the warranty is basically pointless anyway.

So, getting back to what it is you want to do specifically with street photography I would recommend full frame and prime lenses.
Full frame will give you access to shallower DoF, reasonably better ISO, and generally better PQ (depending on which bodies you're comparing).
Primes because if you're serious about street photography, you don't have time to zoom. It's more about understanding your focal length, having your lens and camera body being an extension of your eye, and taking less than 2 seconds to lift the camera to your eye, frame the shot, and take it. That of course is a skill, but it starts with learning the frame of your lens, so you can "see" it even without the camera up to your face.
I've done it before. I basically ran a 3-4 month long project of shooting street photography everyday and posting everyday. I did it with my 5D2 and a 50mm f/1.4. You can see the 100's of images here. All of the photos have minimal processing. It really was just about learning the craft of street photography and to force myself to shoot photos everyday (as an exercise). I'll also note some of it isn't Street Photography, there is a little bit of event work in there as well, but hey sometimes other photography got in the way (it's really hard to shoot everyday!)

So if I was going to do Street Photography as my main point of interest, I would get primes, once again not only for speed (not to mention low-light speed if you're going to shoot at dusk/night, because you probably are), but also because they are physically more compact than zooms.

35mm and 50mm primes are the mainstays of the genre. Look into Henri Cartier-Bresson if you want to learn from the master of street photography. I would probably use one of those two lenses.

If you're on Canon the 35mm f/2 IS is a great lens. And the 50mm f/1.4 is amazing as well. In a pinch the less expensive 50mm f/1.8 is also quite good as is the 35mm f/2 (non IS). Any of these primes will meet or exceed any of Canon's best zooms in terms of picture quality.

If you're looking to do some portrait work on the street as well, you could also buy the 85mm f/1.8. With the prime "trinity" in terms of focal lengths (that is to say 35/50/85), you'll basically be able to shoot any type of subject you want. There will of course be other lenses you could buy for versatility (telephoto, macro, fisheye, wideangle, etc), but most usage cases, especially cases on the street, that will cover you.

You could get all 3 lenses on the used market together for around $1k, giving you $1k to spend on the body. If you can seriously get a 6D for $900, then that would be a pretty killer deal. I've never used Greentoe, but hey, learn something new everyday. Then you should hopefully still have a little bit of money left over to buy an SD card and you're good to go.

So if that's what you want to do that would be the gear I would personally buy to do it. But as you can see from what others have said from above and what I said before, you're going to have to find your own way in this a bit. You're going to have to find your own preferences even as each of the photographers above have voiced their own preferences. It is viable to use a zoom on the street, but it's heavier and bigger. It will have more versatility but you'll have to deal with the rest of those cons (slower, heavier, less DoF/not as wide of an aperture, not as good in low light [especially the 24-70mm f/4 or 24-105 f/4 IS], and physically bigger).



==================================



EDIT: Quick lens primer.

There are two numbers you will always see when getting a lens from any manufacturer. EG: Canon 35mm f/2 IS.

The number preceding "mm" in this case (35) is the focal length. This is the number that determines your field of view.
On a full frame sensor (or piece of film) 50mm is considered to be "neutral". That is to say, 50mm roughly approximates not only the field of view that the human eye sees but also it's "compression".
Anything 'wider' than 50mm is considered to be Wide Angle (14, 24, 35, etc). Anything 'longer' than 50mm is considered to be telephoto (85, 100, 135, 200, etc).

Wide angles, yes get more into the frame, but they also emphasize the foreground, and deemphasize the background (which is actually their true purpose, novices use them to get more in). They also making objects seem wider (barrel distortion).
Telephotos, yes make objects that are further away seem closer, but they also compress the foreground and background together (making objects in front and behind seem closer together). They also make objects seem narrower (pinch distortion).

Once again, keep in mind, this is only for FULL FRAME SENSORS. Crop-frame sensors are physically smaller, so their field of view is cut dramatically. Canon's crop frame cameras are 1.6x, meaning they are 60% smaller than their full frame cameras (meaning their field of view is 60% smaller). And Nikon's are 1.5x, meaning they are 50% the size of their full frame cameras (once again meaning their field of view is 50% smaller). This is one of the reasons why buying a full frame camera versus a crop-frame is such a big deal. It's not about how many megapixels each has, it's more about the physical size of the sensor. This measurement to me means a lot more than megapixels. I would rather shoot on a 12MP Nikon d700 rather than a 24.2MP Nikon d5500 for this reason. Or a Canon example would be a 12.1 5D1 versus an 18MP 7D1. There is no substitution for sensor size. The 60D/70D are both crop frames. As is the 7D2. Will these cameras take excellent pictures? I stress the answer is yes, but there are things that can only be done on full frame and I personally would much rather have those capabilities than not. Field of view is one. ISO is another (although a lot of this is getting solved via better chips and processing). And finally getting shallow depth of field a third.



The second set of numbers is called the f-stop.
In this 35mm example, that number is "2.0"
The smaller that number is, the more light the lens is capable of allowing in. This also means that it can have shallower depth of field. Depth of field is what makes images look in focus or not. So if you've ever wondered how photographers get one item to look in focus and the rest out of focus, it is done with "shallow" depth of field. Generally lenses that are f/2.8 and below cost more, because it is expensive to design lenses to allow in more light, especially zoom lenses. This is one of the reasons why primes are so great. It's possible to get entry level primes that are "faster" (that is to say, allow more light in) than ANY zoom and it won't break the bank. The most expensive zooms "only" allow f/2.8. Whereas even entry level primes are faster at f/2.0 or f/1.4, which is a significant increase in speed (for the technical, that's 2-stops, but we won't talk about all of that for now).
So you understand correctly, it's possible to shoot with ANY lens and get EVERYTHING in focus (by a process called "stopping down", you'll begin to learn this with the exposure triangle, we can talk about that later if you want). But it's NOT possible for every lens other than those lenses with bigger apertures (the bigger the aperture the smaller the f-stop number, I know that is confusing) to get one object in focus and everything not in focus.


So a 24-70mm f/4 zoom will go from wide angle to a mild telephoto. And have a maximum aperture of f/4 (which isn't particularly fast, and won't allow for a particularly shallow depth of field).

 

[IdiotInCharge]

Sorry, but those lenses are all pretty horrible. You should generally avoid any zooms that have a variable aperture if you can, so those with "f/4-5.6" are ones you want to avoid if possible. Look for ones with just one number there like f/4 or f/2.8. There are exceptions, and the variable aperture is unavoidable in certain areas like telephoto without breaking the bank, but with your budget & subject ideas I think you'd be better off just geting one good lens like a 24-70 f/4 or f/2.8 if possible.

While this is a decent general observation, it's not really the case in reality- many of the variable aperture lenses that Canon produces, aside from the kit lenses (18-55 STM, 24-105 STM) are best in class, even the cheap ones, like the 18-135 STM, 55-250 STM, and 10-18 STM, as are the L's, like the 70-300L and 100-400L II.

 

[Anh N.]

UnknownSouljer,
On a side note, I just read your BTS on Robin's shoot on your page. That was very informative and good read, and certainly helpful to me in future shoots. Thank you for writing it.

Back on topic, if you decide to get crop sensor such as the Canon 700D or the 70D to say in budget, I would buy only EF lenses so that I would not have to switch lenses when going full frame later. IMHO, I would say get the 700D for now, and the Canon 50mm f1.8 to start. As point out before, the 700D touch screen are also very useful for video. The reason for this recommendation is that, while you want to try your hand at this hobby, there is no guarantee that you will want to stick with it. They should provide great IQ, and good starting point to learn. It also gives you a good idea of which direction and lenses you want to purchases next, zoom or prime, etc... Photography can be an expensive hobby for sure. So let not go overboard with expensive stuffs first. This is another reason to get used.

 

[jamsomito]

Sorry, but those lenses are all pretty horrible. You should generally avoid any zooms that have a variable aperture if you can, so those with "f/4-5.6" are ones you want to avoid if possible. Look for ones with just one number there like f/4 or f/2.8.

I beg to differ. Granted, most of these lenses are budget conscious, they really are excellent for the price. Find me a constant aperture wide angle or telephoto with IS for $300. That 55-250 has fantastic IQ. And the "walk-around" lens I listed is constant aperture f/2.8, and has optics similar to or better than some L-series lenses. Most of the L-series lenses have weird focal ranges for APS-C though. You really can't do much better on APS-C without spending a lot more. It's true that they won't carry over to full frame if OP decides to upgrade in the future, but for all we know he won't dig the hobby and this will all be sunk costs anyway. But, these things do hold on to their value somewhat, maybe with the exception of the bodies. What I was trying to do here was provide some options so he could figure out what it is he wanted to do.

OP, realize you're getting advice from enthusiasts and experts here. While everyone is recommending great equipment, you'll also find that everyone has a different background, found their "specialty" and decided the extra money to them is worth it. If you're just getting started, you have no idea if you want wide angle, telephoto, tripod, filter, flash, etc etc... As a beginner, unless you have an astronomical budget, you just can't have it all. As someone who is budget conscious myself, I would recommend a cheaper body since these days they really are all excellent if you get to know how to use them, and pair that body with a good all-around zoom lens (like the 17-55 f/2.8 I mentioned). Play around with it a bit. Maybe you find you like the wide end of the spectrum, or the telephoto, or maybe just right in the middle for portraits, etc. Then you can spend more on those types of lenses. And by then, when you get to know what it is you like/don't like about the lens, you will be better educated at that point, and can more effectively use your money for something that's really going to make a difference in your photos.

Personally this is the route I took. I would have loved a full frame body, but it was just too cost-prohibitive for me. Since I wasn't happy with the photos I was getting, I was determined to get it better, and there is no amount of equipment that will educate you more about what makes a good photograph than just putting your own time into it. I've learned more in the last 6 months since I got my APS-C camera than I have in the last 10 years of shooting point and shoots. Had I gotten the full-frame camera, I would have been equally as disappointed, but I wouldn't have been able to afford my wide angle lens, which is now one of my favorite styles to shoot. So my advice is to get a cheaper camera (possibly APS-C, maybe not), and a great walk-around lens, and get out there and use the thing. Figure out what you want, then spend the rest of your money from there.

All this being said, I have a lot of respect for everyone else in the community here, they definitely know what they're talking about and I have learned a ton from them. But, please don't just jump in by throwing money at it. Get something for starters, find your niche, and grow from there. That's my 2 cents.

 

[madFive]

I'm sure those lenses are great for their prices - they all look very reasonable. But I still think Speedy would be better off getting one L lens than 3 lower-end ones. If I had a budget of $2k and was starting over with my gear collection, I would definitely want to spend at least half of it on one really nice lens. I don't know Canon gear, but my understanding is the L are the ones to go for. For Nikon pretty much anything with an F/2.8 or lower is good. Or just go primes. I'm cheap like that too, so I love my primes.

And yeah, for Telephoto, especially anything over 200mm, you pretty much have to go variable aperture or it's going to cost an absolute fortune. The only zoom lens I own is the 70-300VR, which is variable aperture, so I can definitely understand the rationalle. But generally when I see something with the number 55 in it and a variable aperture, my experience says you should run far far away.

There are also primes with variable apperture (tammy macro lenses, which I love), and in my experience those are just fine since you mostly shoot with them stopped down anyways. You really just have to know what you're looking for, so these are really just rule of thumb type suggestions.

 

[IdiotInCharge]

The only zoom lens I own is the 70-300VR, which is variable aperture, so I can definitely understand the rationalle. But generally when I see something with the number 55 in it and a variable aperture, my experience says you should run far far away.

That's a Nikon thing; the 55-200 and 55-300 lenses are functional, but certainly not inspiring in terms of IQ. Canon's latest 55-250 STM is actually a pretty good lens, as noted above.

And Canon's current f/2.8 zooms start at $1500 for the UWA, while the standard and telephoto versions are $2000 each. That pretty much breaks the budget outright, and while they're all best in class, the better (more recent) f/4 zooms are just as good as the f/2.8 zooms and the L primes at the narrower apertures. Landscape shooters love the 24-70/4L, for example, when a T/S or UWA lens isn't required, while that same lens excels as an all-arounder due to it's fast AF, top-notch IS, and close-focus ability.

I can't get to the OP's vendor of choice, but a 6D + 24-70/4L kit is as good as it gets within the stated budget, leaving room for a faster 50mm or 85mm prime for good subject isolation when needed.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

UnknownSouljer,
On a side note, I just read your BTS on Robin's shoot on your page. That was very informative and good read, and certainly helpful to me in future shoots. Thank you for writing it.

Thanks. I'm glad it was useful. I spent some time writing it. I really want to get into writing more stuff. I wrote some short things about the PCB 86" PLM, but I have enough in my brain to write an entire article. I also could write about the ballet shoot. And another article about moving to primes and primes vs zooms in general.

Back on topic, if you decide to get crop sensor such as the Canon 700D or the 70D to say in budget, I would buy only EF lenses so that I would not have to switch lenses when going full frame later. IMHO, I would say get the 700D for now, and the Canon 50mm f1.8 to start. As point out before, the 700D touch screen are also very useful for video. The reason for this recommendation is that, while you want to try your hand at this hobby, there is no guarantee that you will want to stick with it. They should provide great IQ, and good starting point to learn. It also gives you a good idea of which direction and lenses you want to purchases next, zoom or prime, etc... Photography can be an expensive hobby for sure. So let not go overboard with expensive stuffs first. This is another reason to get used.

OP, realize you're getting advice from enthusiasts and experts here. While everyone is recommending great equipment, you'll also find that everyone has a different background, found their "specialty" and decided the extra money to them is worth it. If you're just getting started, you have no idea if you want wide angle, telephoto, tripod, filter, flash, etc etc... As a beginner, unless you have an astronomical budget, you just can't have it all. As someone who is budget conscious myself, I would recommend a cheaper body since these days they really are all excellent if you get to know how to use them, and pair that body with a good all-around zoom lens (like the 17-55 f/2.8 I mentioned). Play around with it a bit. Maybe you find you like the wide end of the spectrum, or the telephoto, or maybe just right in the middle for portraits, etc. Then you can spend more on those types of lenses. And by then, when you get to know what it is you like/don't like about the lens, you will be better educated at that point, and can more effectively use your money for something that's really going to make a difference in your photos.

Personally this is the route I took. I would have loved a full frame body, but it was just too cost-prohibitive for me. Since I wasn't happy with the photos I was getting, I was determined to get it better, and there is no amount of equipment that will educate you more about what makes a good photograph than just putting your own time into it. I've learned more in the last 6 months since I got my APS-C camera than I have in the last 10 years of shooting point and shoots. Had I gotten the full-frame camera, I would have been equally as disappointed, but I wouldn't have been able to afford my wide angle lens, which is now one of my favorite styles to shoot. So my advice is to get a cheaper camera (possibly APS-C, maybe not), and a great walk-around lens, and get out there and use the thing. Figure out what you want, then spend the rest of your money from there.

All this being said, I have a lot of respect for everyone else in the community here, they definitely know what they're talking about and I have learned a ton from them. But, please don't just jump in by throwing money at it. Get something for starters, find your niche, and grow from there. That's my 2 cents.

I'm sure those lenses are great for their prices - they all look very reasonable. But I still think Speedy would be better off getting one L lens than 3 lower-end ones. If I had a budget of $2k and was starting over with my gear collection, I would definitely want to spend at least half of it on one really nice lens. I don't know Canon gear, but my understanding is the L are the ones to go for. For Nikon pretty much anything with an F/2.8 or lower is good. Or just go primes. I'm cheap like that too, so I love my primes.

Here is the thing: the OP has stated where he wants to go with photography. If he has an idea of what he wants to do, suggesting things for that wheel house is appropriate. We're not giving him a budget of $2k, he is giving himself a budget of $2k. Our job is just to outline the gear best for that type of photography and explain why.

I realize I'm stroking my ego when I say this, but I think primes are the way to go. For speed (both in terms of the actual taking of a picture and fast aperture), cost, and size/weight. He wants to do street photography and entry level videography. Primes have the serious advantage for this kind of work. They also have the advantage in portraiture and studio work.

If he wanted to dive into doing weddings, events, landscape, etc, then zooms would be the obvious choice for a starter, but there are some that would still use primes for a lot of these as well.

In any case an f/4.0 aperture is going to be limiting for street work especially if he wants to shoot during dusk or at night. And as earlier mentioned buying a stack of f/2.8L zoom lenses is incredibly cost prohibitive.

His usage cases are:

1. Outdoor urban shots (think busy streets, skateparks, etc)
2. urban portraits... individual people in an urban context... e.g. a pretty girl walking by an ugly city street/building... a bum sleeping by a beautiful building/background... flaming fag by a fruit stall
3. urban indoor/night shots... clubs... shopping malls... night traffic...
4. more like a nice to have: holiday pictures... not for art work, but more like photo albums of holidays

I generally try to not get argumentative in forums as things go south and unproductive quick, but frankly f/4.0 isn't going to work for shooting urban dusk/night shots. Unless large amounts of noise are going to be a part of the proposition. The same with most indoor work in general. As an example, I shoot almost weekly in my church just doing general whatever shooting. And at a MINIMUM I'm shooting at ISO 800 at 1/80th of a second, f/2.0! That's EFFF TWO! If I wanted f/2.8 that would be ISO 1600 or f/4.0 that's ISO 3200. ISO 3200 is still a hard place to be on any camera. And at 1/80th of a second I basically have to be motionless to take a shot. I can't in good conscience recommend f/4.0, let alone f/5.6.

If I wanted to play the game of "lets just get him started for the least amount of money possible" I would tell him to buy a 5D1 (that's right, a mark one) for <$500 (some have recently sold on eBay for as low as $300) and a 50mm f/1.8 for <$100 (both used prices) and shoot with that everyday for three months. As a learning exercise and from a usefulness in terms of equipment to dollar ratio that would be the setup to beat. The Nikon equivalent would be a D700 and a 50mm f/1.8G. If this is about learning and dollar to gear ratio for street photography that would be by far the best option.

But that isn't the scenario. It's $2k in gear for street photography and to be able to shoot indoors/outdoors at night and in dark scenarios (with the possible added bonus of shooting some beginning video). f/2.8 is probably a minimum requirement for that. Primes with f/2.0 or greater are going to excel here. And it is also going to excel once again for street work. If the OP was an individual that just said: "I don't know what I want to shoot", or: "I just want to do a lot of general purpose shooting", suggesting a big stack of cheap zooms would make sense. But he didn't. He has stated what he wants to do. Primes even with their "so-called" difficulty to learn will carry him farther than zooms can.

That's why I suggested all primes and the 6D. A camera with excellent ISO, full frame (also helping low light, amongst other pros), good video capability, and a stack of primes that are going to let in the light. And believe me when I say, even if he does decide he needs more other lenses (and of course we all do, as generally when we bump up against a limitation, that's when the gear acquisition happens), the 6D and 35/50/85 will be an excellent base to build on top of. It would be hard to argue that they would be a waste of cash in any scenario, whereas buying and selling EF-S lenses is and or can be.