Yeah, I just mainly wanted to brag that I had a 1.2
I also have the F 1.8. They are a great lens, and you cant beat them for the money.
If I were on a budget, and could only buy one cheap lens it would be the 40mm f2.8 pancake. I love that little lens, I can shove it in my pocket when I’m carrying a long lens and want something shorter just in case, and it focuses a lot faster than the 1.8.
A good image processing program will open new worlds for you.
Adobe Photoshop Elements 11 or ACDSee 16 can each be had for well under $100. Easy to learn and use, as well. Even a modern P&S camera gives you enough image file to do some fun stuff with an image processing program.
.
Both those programs have free 30 day trials available.
If the camera has an APS-C size sensor then it might be better to get a 35mm prime. That is almost the same as a fifty was on 35mm film once the crop factor is accounted for. Years ago I bought a 50mm lens for my then-new Nikon DSLR, and I was let down by the crop factor. It behaved like a 75mm lens and I always found it too narrow for my taste.
I recently bought a Fuji X-Pro 1 camera with the XF 35mm F/1.4 lens as my only lens, and I absolutely love it. It’s just like I remember a 50 prime on film cameras. The wide aperture combined with the sensitive sensor (iso 3200 still looks clean) makes the camera see like a cat’s eye. I need no flash, even in dimly lit rooms.
…but back to the OP, I would recommend a popular consumer DSLR (either Nikon or Canon) for someone who is just starting but wants to get into the fun stuff beyond point and shoot. The lenses are where your money goes, and you can always get a better body in the future.
Currently, many local and online stores are marketing the next to last incarnation of Nikon or Canon entry level DSLRs with kit lens for around $500, even slightly less sometimes. The extra tele zoom lens, or sometimes packaged as an extended kit, may push the price up another $150 to $200 dollars. Think Best Buy, Sam’s Club, Adorama, Cameta, B&H, Target, and even WalMart.
I’m talking about cameras like the Canon T3 (not T3i), or Nikon D3100. Buy refurbished and save even more. The newer ones, T3i, D3200 are still within your stated budget.
Get a nice bag (some kits come with one), an extra batt, a couple of memory cards, a card reader for your computer, Elements 11, and a light weight tripod, and you still have enough out of that $1000 to take her out to Chilis or Red Lobster!
The built in flashes are nice, but there are shoe mounted flashes that will extend your range quite a bit without going too much over your original budget. They are worth it for any slightly more advanced ideas she might have. ($150 to $200)
the 35, at least in Canon, is considerably more expensive. You can get a 50 1.8 that is sharp as a tack for around a 100 bucks if you catch a good sale. The only downside is that it is slow focusing and you have to manual focus in low light.
I saw the Panasonic Lumix G5 offered as a 2 lens kit on Adorama for a really good price. Micro 4/3rds format, so even more of a crop factor than APS-C sensor cameras. Mirrorless, so almost as small as some longzoom P&S cameras.
Look up “crop factor”, even Wiki has a good write up of what it means for you in the real world.
Yes, but if a “good shot” is something that anyone can do if they pick one out of a thousand. And it’s easy to shoot a thousand exposures an session now. So skill can be replaced by luck.
Those monkeys don’t have typewriters. They have word processors and RedBull.
I’m as amateur as they come, and I got a Canon Rebel a whole ago and I’ve been very happy with it. I’d stay away from anything point and shoot. If you want a point and shoot, use the camera on your phone.
I particularly like the zoom lens I bought extra. I mainly take pictures of my daughter, and I love being able get out of the way, and still being able to take great close up looking shots from a distance. The Rebel’s faster than any P&S I’ve ever used, and it seems like it does better with low light pictures too.
The lenses in these kits are pretty much useless, especially in low light. If you can get a better deal on a body alone take that.
If you need a bag (I have several expensive ones that just gather dust), find one you like in a store, then find it on ebay where someone bought it, and didn’t use it. Most people try several and often the ones they don’t want wind up on ebay. I rarely use more than a boda lens bag.
There is no such thing as a good, cheap, lightweight tripod. With tripods it is
Cheap
Light
Good
You get to choose any two.
Flashes should rarely (if ever) be used on camera. If you can’t use an off camera flash, then use a fast lens and high iso.
And if I could only have one editing proggy it would be lightroom. I use photoshop for more intensive stuff…but 99 percent of what I do is in lightroom and if you are just starting out it should take care of everything.
This IS a beginner asking us…
If you’re really interested in learning about photography, a compact/point and shoot isn’t going to be too satisfying. They have a very limited ability to play with depth of field, which is one of the main tools you have as a photographer. Most compacts don’t even have real apertures, just a drop-in neutral density filter to decrease the exposure.
Two of your requirements (night shots and action shots) aren’t very well suited to compacts either. I’ve taken a few good action shots with compacts, but it’s so much harder than with DSLRs. Compacts are also very limiting when using low light. They simply don’t gather all that much light, their sensor is about 1/20th as large as the APS-C mainstream DSLR format and while they do make fast (wide aperture) lenses for compacts, they typically sacrifice zoom range. DSLRs of course make no sacrifices like that, since you can always find a lens that suits your purpose.
If you do want to get a compact, I think Canon makes the best one. I’m not sure if there’ve been replacements to these cameras in the last few months, but the S100 is great if you want something with a limited zoom range that takes high quality pictures and has decent low light performance, and the SX260 is great if you want a very wide zoom range with pretty good performance all around.
For DSLRs, I’m the Pentax guy around here. They simply build flat-out better cameras for the price, and they’re really oriented towards photographers and advance amateurs in terms of ergonomics and features and design. They’re also the only company that doesn’t artificially cripple their mainstream cameras in an effort to try to get you to upgrade to a more expensive camera to get certain features.
In particular, the K-5 with kit lens is a crazy cheap $769 on Amazon now. It was the best APS-C/mainstream camera there was for about 2 years, only recently having competition from new models. But you’re essentially getting a $1500-class semi-pro model with the full range of features for just a couple hundred bucks more than crippled entry level cameras.
Compact (Canon and Nikon deliberately add empty space to their cameras - seriously - because there’s a perception that bigger cameras are more professional), good ergonomics, fantastic sensor, very durable (stainless steel and magnesium alloy, doesn’t feel like a cheap plastic toy, full weather sealing - I’ve had mine covered in mud and used it in the middle of violent storms), pro-class features, 14-bit raws, 7.5 frames per second, in-body stabilization (this isn’t an unambiguous plus because in-lens stabilization can have a slight advantage in certain scenarios, but it does mean that every lens is stabilized whereas with Canon/Nikon it depends on the lens and makes the lenses more expensive). The only real disadvantage is inferior tracking in continuous focus mode, but that’s compared to the semi-pro and pro Nikon/Canon bodies, it’s still better than the lower tier cameras in your budget. Probably the best deal in photography history, at least in the digital age. Combined with the best-in-class 55-300 you’d have 18-300 covered to begin at just $100 more than your current budget. I’ve taken most of the top third of these pictureswith that combo. My second recommendation would probably be a Nikon D5200, but since they’re about the same price, and the K5 is way more camera, there’s no reason. You’d have to go down a tier to the D3200 level cameras to save money, and those are several tiers below.
Incidentally, everyone will tell you that the body isn’t that important, that it’s the lenses that are the important thing, and no, I’m apparently the only person to disagree with that. Yes, better lenses take better pictures, but we’ve reached a point where even the cheapest lenses give pretty good results. Whereas a body that fits you, that you feel comfortable taking with you, that has a great sensor (and sensor performance between cameras can be just as big a thing as the difference between lenses with similar purpose but different price tiers), that fits your style and gives you all the features you want is more important to getting you out there and learning and mastering the art of photography. Start with a good body, and you can build up your lens collection over time. I’d rather have a semi-pro or pro-class body with $100-200 primes than an entry level body with great lenses.
As far as software goes, you should shoot raw (the camera records exactly how the light hit the sensor with no processing on-board from the camera, which gives post processing software the most information to work with) and use Lightroom. I’m not sure photoshop is really necessary at all. Depends what sort of editing you do - if you just want to tweak stuff like contrast, exposure, white balance, levels, saturation, etc. then Lightroom is better. Photoshop is really only useful if you’re trying to do advanced stuff like adding and removing elements from pictures, altering the way things look, etc. I saw Lightroom 4 on sale for $50 not long ago, but I don’t know how often something like that comes along.
Heh…I know.
I would go with one of the canon rebels, a tamron 28-75 f2.8 zoom. I’d skip the tripod and skip the bag. And get a copy of understanding exposure.
That would give you a good zoom, with good low-light capability. A black rapid strap if you have money left over.
Ehhhhh, epic YMMV on this one. I’ve found that a good on-camera bounce flash to be an endlessly useful tool. Sometimes you just have some sharp shadows in a shot, and a flash is just what you need to fill things in and even the exposure out. You just have to learn how to use it properly, like any other tool.
All posts here are very good info for you, op. And, as in everything you see on a message board, ymmv. Sometimes by quite a bit.
An interesting read is Ken Rockwell’s website. Please, do not take his word as gospel simply because he’s a famous photog. His opinion is just like what’s been posted here (incl by me), simply an opinion. But, it’s all useful information.
For a whole lot of info, incl real tests on some cameras and lenses, check out dpreview.com
Above all, tho, make sure to ENJOY the new found hobby. You and your wife. Once she gets deeper into things, she may find herself changing her photographic needs, tastes, styles, etc… If one doesn’t enjoy it, they won’t continue. I think photography of any kind is a great hobby for one to get in to, whether serious, casually, or anywhere in between. So, filter thru all the opinions here, ask the same Qs elsewhere on the web, and do your research.
I use (rarely) one on body for fill, especially in bright light outdoors where I cant position the subject. I occasionally use it bounced, when there is no other option. If I’m shooting somewhere I know I’m going to need a flash I break out the pocket wizards and one of my quantum strobes on a small footprint stand. None of this should be done by someone just starting out. Learn to master natural light first.
I saw a Canon S110 on Amazon, so I guess it’s the newest version. My only complaint about my S95 is that my thumb often hits the “view photo” button by accident. That’s a serious problem when photographing wildlife, although I almost always use my Nikon D100 when stalking the wily critters. No substitute for the hefty telephotos, for sure.
A buddy of mine got into photography about the same time, I still have all my original gear and he has tripled his lens arsenal so its very easy to fall prey to the next best thing.
I purchased a canon rebel xsi. My wife already had the kit lenses so I added just two lenses, a sigma 17-70 and a canon 70-200 F4. I am in the gear for about 1.2k. Should I decide to quit I can sell those two lenses for about what I paid for them. The kit lenses are shit for resale but work to practice on. Personally I would be looking for good used equipment you can get for decent price.
Once again, nah. If you don’t know what you’re doing, luck ain’t gonna do it. Besides, how many photos do you you think professionals take? I bet it’s a hell of a lot more than amateur. I average about 150,000 or so photos a year (as a professional), and even when I was shooting film I was shooting maybe 1/3 - 1/2 of that rate. National Geographic photographer, for example, shot up to about a thosand rolls of film (about 36,000 exposures) for an assignment, of which maybe two dozen are printed.