Choosing a DSLR and lenses for portrait and landscapes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pohled

Shooting in a studio or something like that isn't my goal at the moment. I guess that I still have a long way ahead until I can think about using so much equipment, but I appreciate your tips, GrumpyDiver.

I liked the 430EX suggestion, it's seem to be something I can afford and "decent" :)

For what I've searched, spending 1800 USD I could get a Canon 70D with a 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens.
Not sure if it would be worth spending anything else, for example a 75-300mm lens.

ps: after all the nice inputs here, I'll work hard to get nice shots of Rio de Janeiro and post here in the following months =D

---

I had a quick read through all the new posts to this thread. I'm pretty much in agreement with what's been written about flash photography, but I did note that the advice did seem to be quite strongly polarised towards the type of shooting that that poster did - which of course doesn't necessarily equate well with the type of shooting that the OP may wish to do (and thus the advice may not be particularly relevant).

With regards to flash for general photography (which I'd class your requirements as) it's definitely an asset. It's one of those things where you don't have to use it it you don't need it -- but it's invaluable for situations when you DO need it. A lot of people don't use it because they don't understand it -- and their results suffer because of it. In photography, many will say "you can still get good results without {insert name of feature or accessory here} - which may well be true - but don't forget that on many occasions getting a picture isn't sufficient if it's not the picture that you want. Case in point - someone may say "flashes aren't for me - I prefer to only shoot with natural light"; they may well get natural light results that work for them, but they're going to be up the creak without a paddle when they need to take that cute photo of a baby grand-child who's fallen asleep in grandma's arms late at night. Having to say "sorry - although I'm a photographer, I'm only a natural light photographer" just doesn't cut it in those situations. As a (some days) professional photographer I feel I need to be equipped to take the image the client wants -- not just a "cool photo" that fits within narrow limitations of restrictive gear. That probably won't apply to you to that degree, but I do feel that every photographer needs a base skill set before they get more specialised into macro, birds, landscape etc - and thus they really need to have some basic tools for that general photography. And in that basic toolbox I'd definitely include a flash, tripod, and remote release.

In terms of flashes, a 430EX II is a LOT better than nothing; I'd definitely buy that in preference to cheaper off-brand units (for a number of reasons). Having said that, if you're already feeling a strong pull towards high-end amateur / professional level location portraiture then I'd suggest that one starts saving for something more capable like a 600EX-RT (I'm up to 6 of the little blighters now). It is a significant investment - but it does make life a LOT easier having a quality and reliable portable light source; yes, often there are potentially effective work-arounds, but often they're hard work at a time when you're already busy enough wrestling alligators on a shoot. For location shooting, the best "bang for my bucks" came from a simple ETTL flash firing into a shoot-through umbrella that was mounted on a pole held by a VAL (Voice-Activated Light-stand) (usually a daughter or models boyfriend).

eg

http://www.pbase.com/cjsouthern/imag...7/original.jpg

and

http://www.pbase.com/cjsouthern/imag...2/original.jpg

There is another aspect to tripods that also involves not buying too cheap. I would say a minimum for general use is something along the lines of a Manfrotto 190. An actual Manfrotto is best too as some cheaper models may look the same but skimp on material. I doubt if anyone would buy one of these and not get many years of use out of it even if the subsequently decide to get a very massive one largely down to the weight of gear like that. Carbon fibre doesn't seem to have helped much on that aspect. I'm 6' 3" and it will get a camera more or less up to my eye height and I wouldn't see any problems with well balanced gear on the top fairly well short of a to 500mm zoom. Without the centre column extended I would put a 500mm on it too at a pinch.

My 70-300mm canon zoom may be longer than current ones but it trombones rather a lot at 300mm and holding that on a tripod via the camera screw hole wouldn't be a good idea. It would really need a lens tripod mounting ring as without it the set up would be completely unbalanced. Fortunately as it has IS I only use it hand held. Not much of a problem as they are fairly light. I also have a 50-200mm F2.8. Weight makes that a more difficult hand hold but that does have a tripod mount on the lens. Also a 200-500m - a nigh on impossible hand hold without a very high shutter speed even with IS in the camera..

Some people also find themselves buying rather expensive light weight travel tripods at some point. Don't think that would make much sense for a 1st tripod. Generally these are often only used at lower heights.

Tripod heads are a problem. I haven't the remotest notion how much I have wasted on these. I now have a couple I am happy with but no idea if they can be bought in N. America. Both by Olivon. One is a pan and tilt that has a rather long guiding handle ideal for longer telephoto. The other is a 3 way avoiding often flimsy L brackets, shorter handle but very sturdy. I'm not so keen on ball heads as I find the camera is more likely to flip as there is insufficient tension adjustment or when that is set up correctly they can be stiff to move. I'm not prepared to try any more of those so went looking for sensible designs - that proved to be a problem. There are some interesting expensive ideas about but just how good are they in practice?

Must admit though with lighter lenses up to 300mm on m 4/3 at higher pixel densities than any full frame camera I don't see the need for a tripod so don't carry one around. As I see it this is what IS and ISO are for. The main question is how high can the iso go and how capable is the IS and how bright a day it is. My tripod mainly comes out indoors and night shots or if I am testing a lens.

I feel the biggest problem is a decent head and other than the 2 I have mentioned can't offer any suggestions. i have had some absolute junk manfrotto ones. Best advice I feel is to avoid anything that looks like plastic. If you know where you are going to shop some one may be able to make suggestions.

I recently heard that Manfrotto are calling for standardised quick release plates, the Swiss type. Something to bear in mind. Olivon use the same plate on all of their heads so I bought several - they aren't swiss types of course yet but may be some time or the other. Olivon also make tripods that I would expect to be just as good as Manfrotto. A good guide to how good a tripod is is the top tube diameter and weight. Going past 3 section legs really needs larger top tube diameters but manufacturers do not seem to bother about that. Cheaper tripods also often use lower tensile material - not a good idea. Another reason for sticking with Manfrotto unless some one knows some other company that does the same thing. It makes an incredible difference. Same with monopods - number of sections, tube diameters and the materials.

John
-

John I really think that you should be looking at Really Right Stuff, their ball heads, tripods, L-brackets, and lens collars really puts anything Manfrotto puts out to shame. Their TVC-24L is 170cm with no centre column and under $950.00 US.

I have added RRS link

http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/s.nl/it.A/id.7825/.f

Cheers: Allan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Polar01

John I really think that you should be looking at Really Right Stuff, their ball heads, tripods, L-brackets, and lens collars really puts anything Manfrotto puts out to shame. Their TVC-24L is 170cm with no centre column and under $950.00 US.

I have added RRS link

http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/s.nl/it.A/id.7825/.f

Cheers: Allan

---

I'm happy with what I have Allen. I bought my 190 about 20 years ago. One thing I will say about that tripod is that it looks like it may be what I call carbon fibre. I sea fish from time to time and have been using carbon fibre beach casters for rather a long time. The question with it is just how much carbon fibre and how much resin. I'd guess that the tripod you linked to may be what I call carbon fibre. I did venture that way with a monopod via manfrotto. Compared with my old one it is marginally stiffer but not usefully so. Weight wise there isn't that much difference. :) I actually wonder why I bought it really.

It is possible to buy right stuff gear in the UK here

http://www.photospecialist.co.uk/rea...eries-2-tripod

All of a sudden $ turn in £.

Being fair about resin and carbon content as carbon goes up things get more fragile. Taking beach casters as a for instance people just wouldn't buy one used with the slightest signs of a prominent scratch in it. Tubes can be incredibly stiff and I feel much lighter than the carbon fibre photo gear I have seen around. UK beach caster butt sections are rather stiff by the way.

I have always been interested in bird photography and have recently bought some lenses specifically for that. I may find that I need a stronger tripod but intend to try a monopod first but will also try hand held although with something like a tamron 200-500mm feel that will be a joke. It also would be with a Nikon F4 300mm plus 2x as no IS unless I can use very high ISO's. I hoped to try using these lenses on m 4/3 too manually but feel I wont be able use the set up. I just point stuff down the garden to find out.

John
-

Lots of talk about "Buy equipment that meets your needs... Buy pieces one at a time... Master the equipment you have and graduate to the next level..." Good in theory but for the most part rubbish.

A fetish for technology and an inability to delay gratification leads most of us to blow lots of dough on the latest accessory and then using only 20% of our kit 80% of the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skilsaw

Lots of talk about "Buy equipment that meets your needs... Buy pieces one at a time... Master the equipment you have and graduate to the next level..." Good in theory but for the most part rubbish.

A fetish for technology and an inability to delay gratification leads most of us to blow lots of dough on the latest accessory and then using only 20% of our kit 80% of the time.

---

Guilty as charged! But at least I have it when I need it...I still have the filters that I have from my film days and the other day I was able to pick it up and use the macro ones I had not touched for years and years. I buy them, catalogue them and have a slot in my wall cabinet for each of my equipment. I got burned by people once and did not touch my cameras for two long years, now I am back, thanks to CiC members who took me by my pants and gave me a kick in the butt and a shake of my head...I may have blown a lot of money for my hobby but I did not harm any fellow human being by doing so, not even any members of my family. I'm getting off my soup box now. Good morning, good evening, goodnight, whichever one is the nearest your way.

Hi,

Coming back here to give a feedback of what I've decided to purchase after your helpful advices.
I chose the Canon 70D with 18-55mm kit lens and also a 55-250mm f/4-5.6 lens. I also got a 430EX flash.
Well, now I have a lot to learn =)
Thank you once more for the attention