Now that I've been taking photos for a few months and really enjoying every minute of it, I feel that this may be a hobby that I will stick with for quite some time. While I never intend to make this a business, I do want to continue to improve for personal satisfaction. I realize I have chosen a hobby that can get quite expensive, so I wanted your opinions on what to buy and when to buy it.
Currently I have a Nikon D60 which I realize is near the bottom of the barrel, but it's a start :) I have the 18-55mm Nikkor lens that came with it. The only other accessories I have are a cheap tripod and a new camera bag and strap cover ( http://365project.org/alisongbradshaw/365/2010-10-30) :) I have been using picnik.com to edit.
I would love your suggestions on lenses, accessories, editing software...what should I buy first? Should I buy now and get the things that are within my budget, or wait until I can get the better versions (i.e. photoshop elements vs. more advanced products).
I am also intrigued with the idea of shooting in RAW, but I have no idea where to start. Any suggestions or articles/websites/books you can point me towards to begin learning?
I don't know much about most of the questions, but if you're wanting to play with editing software without spending a shedload of money, try GIMP, which is very similar to Photoshop, but is free. You might want to upgrade later, but it might be a useful place to start.
@indiannie_jones if I wasn't already married I'd hire him to! My brother is getting married next fall and man if we lived closer Jinx would be the one I'm sure :) I can only imagine the price of flying him all the way here, housing, feeding, and paying for his services- yikes!
lenses are the most important investment. you need to know what you're interested; is it flowers and bugs? Go macro. Is it landscapes and architecture? Go for wide/ultra-wide. is it street photography? go for a quality mid-range... expand on your interests and maybe we can help! Although the 50mm prime is always a good starting point because it's so cheap :)
@hednod@vikdaddy thanks for the advice on lenses! the problem is I don't have a particular interest...but, I think I am less of a landscape, and more of a close up/portrait kind of girl :) I'm guessing from the sounds of things I will be quite happy with a 50mm prime and a zoom. thanks so much for the advice!
@hednod I second the 18-200mm suggestion. Mine stays on my camera 95% of the time. I've shot magazine features and a cover with it (for any haters that may come on and start talking about how it's low quality...), along with 20"+ sized posters. Quality is great (just don't shoot brick walls with it, then you'll notice the distortion, haha). It eliminates having to carry around a bunch of lenses, which is great when traveling or having a "carry all the time" lens.
I also really love my 50mm f/1.8 lens. I got mine used for $75, and its the 2nd most used lens I have. Great for low light stuff.
For telephoto I have the 70-300mm and 80-200mm. the 70-300 is great and sharp if you don't mind having an F3.5-F5.6 lens. My 80-200mm is the F2.8 so I use it for indoor sports, night/low light stuff, portraits, and weddings. It doesn't have VR like the 70-200mm lens, but it also costs about $1000 less.
Ultra wide lenses are cool, but I wouldn't worry about spending money on them if you don't plan on shooting a lot of stuff where they're necessary. I have a Tokina 12-24mm. I use it basically only for car interiors. Sometimes I'll play with it when I'm bored, but it's a rather useless lens to me on a day to day basis.
I'm almost too embarassed to let on that I saw this thread! Lol! Thanks for the kind words though!
It's all been covered. I agree that lenses are a far better investment than new camera bodies. Even the entry-level bodies are amazing, and better than pro bodies of only a few years ago.
The 50mm would be my first choice. I spent three weeks in Japan using nothing but a 50mm f/1.4 a couple of years back. They're cheap, have awesome DOF control due to the wide aperture, and they are tack-sharp. Can't beat a prime for sharpness. Best portrait lenses, ever.
I, personally, don't like the "super zooms" that go from really wide to really long. But, I know plenty of people who swear by them! That kind of thing is something you have to try to see if you like it and to see if it fullfills your requirements. For me, they don't have enough DOF control and, for the same design reasons, not enough low-light capability. Give me two f/2.8 lenses anyday over one of those pieces of glass. But, I'm used to carrying around a whole bunch of gear, and at 6'2" and 90kg, it doesn't tend to cripple me. If they did an 18-200 f/2.8 constant aperture, I'd be right on it! From what I've seen recently, I will also agree that sharpness is not an issue with those lenses - they are really great. I just don't like to use anything slower than f/2.8, because so much of my work is portraiture. It is rare for me to put slower glass on my camera. So - not a hater like some, but it's not my thing.
Macro lenses can make good (not the best, but still very good) portrait lenses. You could kill two birds, so to speak, by getting an f/2.2 50mm macro or something similar. Whatever the Nikkor equivalent is. The DOF control is still better than a zoom (even pro-lens zoom), and you get the added benefit of macro. Also, because they're macro lenses and need to be, they are usually very sharp.
Please understand that my thoughts are based on what I do. I have a purchasing plan to replace all my zooms with prime lenses, because of the sharpness and DOF control primes give that no other lens can. I like having mutiple lenses at hand. I like the choices that type of kit provides. It's not the most portable if one is travelling or such, but it gives me creative control that zooms cannot give. Also, it slows me down, so I think more about each shot and make every one count - more like film shooting, than digital.
I think the best thing I can suggest is to take your time. Play with equipment, a lot, before you decide to buy it.
Lightroom will do just about everything you need to do. And if you are a student, you can get it really, really cheap. Great workflow tool. Great library tool. Great editing tool.
If you want more than that, avoid Elements. Elements does not give you much more than Lightroom. CS is what you need, for layer masks and such. Not CS5 Extended - the extended stuff is for engineers and people doing 3D rendering - just the standard CS5 (or an earlier version if you can get it cheap).
GIMP is awesome. Not the most user-friendly interface in my opinion, but it is powerful, and is free. There is not much it can't do that Photoshop can. Photoshop is just a lot easier to work with. That said, I've been using versions of PS for years now, so everything else seems clunky to me.
But if you need somewhere to start - Lightroom. Especially Lightroom 3 with its much improved noise reduction and sharpening algorithms.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
Now to hire someone to find a groom :/
Also a good zoom lens is essential i would say. I've actually got a nice all in one 18-200mm.
I also really love my 50mm f/1.8 lens. I got mine used for $75, and its the 2nd most used lens I have. Great for low light stuff.
For telephoto I have the 70-300mm and 80-200mm. the 70-300 is great and sharp if you don't mind having an F3.5-F5.6 lens. My 80-200mm is the F2.8 so I use it for indoor sports, night/low light stuff, portraits, and weddings. It doesn't have VR like the 70-200mm lens, but it also costs about $1000 less.
Ultra wide lenses are cool, but I wouldn't worry about spending money on them if you don't plan on shooting a lot of stuff where they're necessary. I have a Tokina 12-24mm. I use it basically only for car interiors. Sometimes I'll play with it when I'm bored, but it's a rather useless lens to me on a day to day basis.
It's all been covered. I agree that lenses are a far better investment than new camera bodies. Even the entry-level bodies are amazing, and better than pro bodies of only a few years ago.
The 50mm would be my first choice. I spent three weeks in Japan using nothing but a 50mm f/1.4 a couple of years back. They're cheap, have awesome DOF control due to the wide aperture, and they are tack-sharp. Can't beat a prime for sharpness. Best portrait lenses, ever.
I, personally, don't like the "super zooms" that go from really wide to really long. But, I know plenty of people who swear by them! That kind of thing is something you have to try to see if you like it and to see if it fullfills your requirements. For me, they don't have enough DOF control and, for the same design reasons, not enough low-light capability. Give me two f/2.8 lenses anyday over one of those pieces of glass. But, I'm used to carrying around a whole bunch of gear, and at 6'2" and 90kg, it doesn't tend to cripple me. If they did an 18-200 f/2.8 constant aperture, I'd be right on it! From what I've seen recently, I will also agree that sharpness is not an issue with those lenses - they are really great. I just don't like to use anything slower than f/2.8, because so much of my work is portraiture. It is rare for me to put slower glass on my camera. So - not a hater like some, but it's not my thing.
Macro lenses can make good (not the best, but still very good) portrait lenses. You could kill two birds, so to speak, by getting an f/2.2 50mm macro or something similar. Whatever the Nikkor equivalent is. The DOF control is still better than a zoom (even pro-lens zoom), and you get the added benefit of macro. Also, because they're macro lenses and need to be, they are usually very sharp.
Please understand that my thoughts are based on what I do. I have a purchasing plan to replace all my zooms with prime lenses, because of the sharpness and DOF control primes give that no other lens can. I like having mutiple lenses at hand. I like the choices that type of kit provides. It's not the most portable if one is travelling or such, but it gives me creative control that zooms cannot give. Also, it slows me down, so I think more about each shot and make every one count - more like film shooting, than digital.
I think the best thing I can suggest is to take your time. Play with equipment, a lot, before you decide to buy it.
Lightroom will do just about everything you need to do. And if you are a student, you can get it really, really cheap. Great workflow tool. Great library tool. Great editing tool.
If you want more than that, avoid Elements. Elements does not give you much more than Lightroom. CS is what you need, for layer masks and such. Not CS5 Extended - the extended stuff is for engineers and people doing 3D rendering - just the standard CS5 (or an earlier version if you can get it cheap).
GIMP is awesome. Not the most user-friendly interface in my opinion, but it is powerful, and is free. There is not much it can't do that Photoshop can. Photoshop is just a lot easier to work with. That said, I've been using versions of PS for years now, so everything else seems clunky to me.
But if you need somewhere to start - Lightroom. Especially Lightroom 3 with its much improved noise reduction and sharpening algorithms.