Really good points. I don’t generally shoot cars, I photograph runners, skiers, and mountain bikers. So while those techniques mentioned above still work getting a crisp image of the subject is more critical. I can convey motion and action through other elements that aren’t available when shooting a car on a track.
But I strongly agree that learning how to pan properly is critical to capturing many types of action.
I agree with commasense, I’ve shot cycling for years, some of the best shots are panned/blurred background as that’s what show the speed. The other trick is to prefocus & lock that in (focus at a spot on the road/track & then make sure your settings are on manual so that the camera won’t try to autofocus for you.); this creates the opposite, sharp background & blurred riders, which also shows speed.
Full frame lens tend to be both faster & more expensive. Not the way for a beginner to go on cost alone.
It’s not just the length of the lens, it’s the f-stop (lower # is faster/better/more expensive) & who makes the lens. In general, factory glass (Nikon, Canon) is going to be better than aftermarket (Sigma, Tamron, etc) which tend to be less expensive. Not saying their bad, kind of like the difference between a car & a luxury car. Both get you from Point A to Point B, just one is much nicer (& maybe safer w/ all of the latest & greatest safety features) getting there.
Kit glass tends to be not great but it’s cheap. At your price range, a kit is the way to go.
I’ve been taking photos for a very long time.
My first DSLR was a Nikon kit – one body, two lenses. The price was right and I wasn’t sure in the age of digital how much I’d use it, so it was a good introduction to the world of digital. I don’t think there’s anything wrong at all with starting out there – you’ll get a good feel after working with your kit for a while if you a) want to keep on taking photos, and b) what subjects you want to pursue (you may change your mind/ want to expand after doing nature/sports for a while). Then you’ll know if there’s anything else you want to purchase in terms of equipment to pursue those interests.
I hear you about weight. I have some professional-rated Nikon equipment now and while I am very happy with the quality of the pictures I get with it, it’s heavy.
Another avenue for you to pursue might be Sony mirrorless equipment. I went on a photo trip to Newfoundland a couple years ago and one of the other people on the trip had all Sony stuff – it’s smaller and lighter. It’s not cheaper, though, so that’s one thing you have to consider as you go forward – just something to look into. My only personal experience with Sony is a point-and-shoot I carry around for unexpected photo ops, and I’ve no complaint with the quality of the photos there.
One thing I haven’t seen mentioned here is about how you’d prefer to focus and frame your photos. I pretty much detest having to look at a screen to do that, though in some circumstances it works better than looking through a viewfinder. And for that reason I’d also suggest a camera that not only allows you to do both, but that also includes an articulated screen, rather than one that’s set into the back of the camera. That would have come in really handy when I was taking photos of the recent eclipse – and wasn’t something I was thinking about at all when I bought my cameras!
You’ll also find that a mirrorless camera might work better for you if you also think you’d like to take video – most DSLRs include that capability now, and a mirror camera will only allow you to use the screen, which can be a problem in situations where there is a lot of light and it’s hard to see the screen. Mirrorless, if they have a viewfinder, will allow you to use that or the screen. Flexibility can be a really good thing if you are going into a situation where you aren’t sure what’s going to be allowed/possible.
I just deleted a post I was writing with all kinds of stuff about sensor size and depth of field and cool mirrorless cameras and whatnot.
If you are beginning, I would recommend you choose either of the big players (Canon or Nikon) and find an affordable kit. Their kit zoom lenses feel cheap but are surprisingly good, and it is a good starting point.
I say to get one of those two brands because you will have the greatest amount of used gear available to you. You will be able to stop into any decent used camera shop and find something nice for your camera at a reasonable price.
Get whatever feels good in your hands and has controls you like. It’s an amazing time to be starting out in photography, and though you might bumble into getting less optimal camera, you certainly won’t get a bad camera.
Probably getting Nikon D5600. Are the AF-P lenses just a newer version of the AF-S lenses? Camera shop guy told me I need AF-S which I don’t think is right. All the kits have AF-P .
Either will work on your camera.
BTW - I am very happy with this lens:
Tamron 16-300mm
It actually tests better than the Nikon 18-200mm VR, and is both wider and longer. It has rather ferocious purple fringing at the long end, but that can be easily taken care of in post these days. I have some excellent glass, including some full-frame lenses, but I keep this one on my D7200 most of the time.
thanks but $600+ is a lot for a lens , too much for me.
AF-P is just a cheaper version of the Nikon lenses, and what you will see in the kits. If you get a kit with the 18-55mm and 70-300mm lenses, that’s a pretty good basic start, imo. There’s always someone out there who is going to want to sell you more lenses, but in my experience it’s best to wait on that. Work with what you get for awhile and see if there’s more you want to do. You’ll have a better idea of what your needs/wants are by then.
Is there even any real advantage to a DSLR over a good mirrorless these days? Having a mirror made sense in the days of film, such that you could actually see the picture that you’d end up taking; but nowadays, you typically see the picture on a digital screen first, which even has the advantage of showing it the way the sensor sees it. Many modern mirrorless cameras will even have a viewfinder with a second screen, if you’re worried about ambient light.
But then, I know next to nothing about photography, so if there’s a reason a beginner should go with a DSLR regardless, I’d love to hear it.
An electronic view finder on a mirrorless camera isn’t as good as an optical view finder IMO. It’s better than using the screen for composing a shot, but not ideal. For many photographers I don’t think it would be a factor, it is for me. But the advantages of mirrorless cameras are real and hard to deny.
[tangent]I’m on the fence with this one. My Fuji cameras havehybrid viewfinders, a spiffy feature where a little lever on the front switches between optical and electronic viewfinder. To be sure, these are rangefinder-style cameras, so the optical viewfinder does not show the actual image from the lens, but the optical viewfinder is very high quality.
As cool as those hybrid viewfinders are, I find myself rarely using the optical option, as the electronic viewfinder shows me a preview of actual image: white balance, film style, real depth of field, as well as the usage of focus peaking for manual focus. For this reason, I think mirrorless cameras are a very good choice for many kinds of photography.
The only times I really use the optical option are ones where I need to capture action with zero lag. (By the way, I would never recommend mirrorless gear for sports photography–that’s DSLR territory all the way.)
This is definitely a YMMV topic, and many Fuji owners stick to the OVF, rarely using the EVF.[/tangent]
As one beginner to another I highly recommend taking a photo class. DSLRs tend to be packed with a lot of features and shooting options which can be difficult to take in all at once. There’s a lot of useful material on YouTube, too.
I think for shooting sports you’re going to need that AF-S lens eventually.