what camera do you suggest?

[Colin Southern]

Taking good photos is more about techniques than the hardware used to take it. Your good friend should be able adapt to different cameras.

I would be tempted to find someone else to teach me if that is the case.

Good pictures have NOTHING to do with camera brands or specific camera models. If your friend can only handle Canon, I suspect he / she is a relatively inexperenced photographer and would perhaps not be the best mentor...

Personally, I wouldn't read too much into that.

As an experienced Canon shooter I find it much easier to help someone who has a Canon camera; sure, the principles don't change, but at the end of the day (a) any equivalent camera will do the job, but (b) it's just going to be a LOT easier for the tutor to navigate menus and set modes (knowing their effect). So it's not a dispersion on other brands (not saying "Canon is better") just a case of "why not go with Canon if that's a factor that tips the scales". Sure - it's no "better", but on the other hand, it's no "worse" either -- so why not just run with it.

[Colin Southern]

or 18-200mm?

I'd go with the 18-200. It's an OK lens - not great, but not bad either. It's pretty versatile to start off with.

[inkista]

is it advisable to begin with a 18-135mm lens?... or 18-200?

I'll toss in your third choice, the 18-55 IS and the 55-250 IS "twin kit."

To me there are three distinct philosophies you can follow as a beginner trying to put together the lenses for your camera.

1. shotgun-"training wheels triple" approach.

One of the main problems you have as a newcomer to dSLRs is that you don't have enough experience with lenses to know what you want in a lens. There are three low-cost lenses you can get together that will give you the basics of focal lengths from wide angle to telephoto, slow and fast max. aperture lenses, and prime vs. zoom (also stabilized and unstabilized), and that's the 18-55 IS STM kit lens (typically in the box with most lower-end camera bodies for less than if you bought the body and lens separately), the EF-S 55-250 IS telephoto zoom, and the EF 50mm f/1.8 II or EF 40mm f/2.8 STM. Together, they'll cost roughly what one good midgrade lens will cost you (say, US $400-$500), you'll have more reach, more max. aperture in the prime, and probably better image quality. The problem with this approach is that you're liable to eventually want to replace all three lenses, and as these lenses are the lowest-cost lenses Canon makes (and therefore very popular), they don't hold value for resale well. But this probably the most common path for new Canon shooters.

2. Superzoom

The EF-S 18-135 IS STM and 18-200 IS lenses are another way to cover the focal length range, but they won't give you any experience with "fast" lenses or prime lenses. However, they are a lot more convenient than carrying two lenses and switching them, but they are also slightly more compromised optically to cover the large zoom range, and, in the case of the 18-200, is likely to be more expensive than the twin kit. However, on the flip side, you're more liable to keep it as a "travel light" lens in your permanent lineup for those times you don't want to carry multiple lenses with you.

3. Just go pro

If you have someone you can trust to tell you what you need, rather than what THEY want, maybe you can just blow top dollar on some f/2.8 L lenses and be done with it. The downside here is that it's much easier to make a costly mistake, and while the lens will liable to hold value, you have to go through the hassle of selling and rebuying--possibly multiple times, until you figure out what it is you actually need. It's an easy way to waste a lot of money. But at least you won't be blaming your gear rather than your technique when you get the camera and then realize that simply owning a dSLR doesn't suddenly confer gorgeousness upon your pictures. You can consider renting lenses to try before purchasing, as well.

Just me, but with your budget, I think starting out with either the EF-S 18-135 STM (not the older USM version), or the EF-S 15-85 IS USM are probably your best bet for the landscape/walkaround shooting. An 85mm f/1.8 USM or EF 50mm f/1.8 II for the portrait shooting. And the EF-S 100 f/2.8L USM (if you're sure that macro shooting is a big thing for you), or the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 USM Macro if by "macro" you mean "things that don't move on their own", like flowers and table-top objects, not live things that can crawl/hop/fly away when you get too close. But that's me and that's assuming you still want to go Canon. Someone else will undboubtedly tell you you need the EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS USM or EF-S 10-22 for the landscapes.

[William W]

With the budget you have I would go straight to a Full Frame camera. A FF will be the next step up from a crop frame camera.

Why would a FF camera be "the next step up" for the OP?

WW

[Colin Southern]

The EF-S 18-135 IS STM and 18-200 IS lenses are another way to cover the focal length range, but they won't give you any experience with "fast" lenses or prime lenses.

Nice write-up Kathy. I should add though that "fast glass" isn't the issue that it used to be now that we have these insane ISO modes.

[inkista]

Nice write-up Kathy.

Thanks!

I should add though that "fast glass" isn't the issue that it used to be now that we have these insane ISO modes.

Well...unless you think what you're really missing with your P&S is this "bokeh" so many other "ya gotta get a dSLR" folks make a fuss about.

[Colin Southern]

Thanks!

You're welcome. I should compliment you more often to be honest (me bad!); we don't always agree, but I must give you credit for often presenting well-reasoned alternative perspectives.

Well...unless you think what you're really missing with your P&S is this "bokeh" so many other "ya gotta get a dSLR" folks make a fuss about.

Meh, perhaps yes, perhaps no.

If the toss-up is between the tiny sensor of a P&S -v- a DSLR then yes, but on a crop-factor DSLR (with the "bigger DoF advantage" (over a FF DSLR) anyway ), I'd argue that the DoF from a 3.5 -> 5.6 -v- a 2.8 constant aperture probably isn't going to be a huge deal. If one wanted to throw money at it then - what the heck - go for it, but personally I'd be spending that money on solid tripod, remote release, good lighting etc first.

[rtbaum]

I will compare buying body and lens to choosing a college. Some will clearly be superior to others, disregard those that are clearly inferior. Choose the one with which you are most comfortable. At this stage in your journey there are many options, choose one and get on with it. The most important thing is too optimize your kit by learning to use it to its full potential. You should be thinking about spending money on a quality tripod, you need solid support for quality photos. You will want a remote trigger if want to shoot true macro or slow shutter speeds, I prefer corded remote. You should seriously consider off camera flash, it will not be money poorly spent for portraits and macro. You need a bag to carry the body, lenses, and any other gear necessary for the shoot. You need photo processing software to edit your shots, some is free (GIMP) or quite costly (PhotoShop).

I guess that I want to say that you need to leave space in that 5 grand for these items. Do it right at this time and they will be a part of your kit much longer than any camera body that you may choose.

Somewhere I have heard it said, "a camera body is just a box, the lens is just a way to focus light into the box. The image lies between your ears."

Choose a system and get the party started, there are many here that will help you. Keep asking questions on CiC and you, and your friend will learn a lot.

[Colin Southern]

You need photo processing software to edit your shots, some is free (GIMP) or quite costly (PhotoShop).

Photoshop used to be expensive, but now it's just 33c a day.

[rtbaum]

Just 33c a day, 365 days a year......hmmm. Bought my CS4 way back when for about $600.......I think it has paid for itself......shall I toss it.............maybe NOT!!!!


P.S. Lightroom was even cheaper

[Colin Southern]

Just 33c a day, 365 days a year......hmmm. Bought my CS4 way back when for about $600.......I think it has paid for itself......shall I toss it.............maybe NOT!!!!


P.S. Lightroom was even cheaper

I've got CS4 too - and CS3 - and CS5. Don't use any of them anymore - even though they've cost me probably close to a couple of grand ... so that's a couple of grand "wasted". PS CC 2014 has "old" tools (clone stamp, healing brush etc) that work a LOT better than the CS4 versions - and some really nice time-saving ones like content aware fill.

CS4 came out late 2008; if we'd have had the subscription model back then you'd actually have more money in the bank now (the portion of the $600 not being used to pay the subscription would be getting interest), and you'd be enjoying the very latest which is considerably more powerful. Should you toss it? In all honesty? ... yes - I would (what's more, I DID).

PS: Lightroom is also included in the 33c a day photographers package.



https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/whats-new.html

[AB26]

Why would a FF camera be "the next step up" for the OP?

WW

Why would it not be the next step up for anybody striving for perfection in Photography?
Within six years the OP will “outgrow” a crop frame camera.

[Colin Southern]

Why would it not be the next step up for anybody striving for perfection in Photography?
Within six years the OP will “outgrow” a crop frame camera.

Sorry Andre, but what a load of bollocks.

A FF camera is neither better nor worse than a crop-factor camera; just different. Different tool for different jobs.

[AB26]

"fast glass" isn't the issue that it used to be now that we have these insane ISO modes.

Applicable only to FF cameras!

[Colin Southern]

Applicable only to FF cameras!

What on earth are you on about?

[AB26]

Sorry Andre, but what a load of bollocks.

A FF camera is neither better nor worse than a crop-factor camera; just different. Different tool for different jobs.

Sorry Colin, that is a load of bollocks.

That statement make a Leica S2 a different camera for idiots whom want to be different by spending a small fortune on a camera just to be different. After all, a medium format would be no better than a FF? Why “waste” so much money if it is no better?

Why would any Landscape Photographer be using Medium Format?

[William W]

Why would it not be the next step up for anybody striving for perfection in Photography?
Within six years the OP will “outgrow” a crop frame camera.

That is a silly and meaningless response.
It is seemingly is circumventing.

It definitively does NOT answer the specific question that was asked of you: which was for you to explain your reasons and your rationale for the original statement that you made.

WW

[Colin Southern]

Sorry Colin, that is a load of bollocks.

That statement make a Leica S2 a different camera for idiots whom want to be different by spending a small fortune on a camera just to be different. After all, a medium format would be no better than a FF? Why “waste” so much money if it is no better?

Why would any Landscape Photographer be using Medium Format?

So - please tell me exactly how going from a crop-factor camera to a FF camera benefits a wildlife shooter who doesn't want to sell his 400mm lens and buy a far more expensive 600mm lens to get close to the same reach?

And while we're at it, how does "stepping up" to a FF camera help the macro shooter who wants more DoF?

This is going to be riveting ...

[jcuknz]

Probably for the macro shooter having a MFT camera will give you more DoF with reasonable quality, not as much DoF as a bridge camera of course where the small sensor may be a problem. Swings and Roundabouts.

The question I may have missed reading is "What are your intentions in Photography?" Saying one wants to do landscapes, portraits, and macro doesn't tell us very much and most cameras are capable of handing those subjects these days. "For what purpose do you want to take photos?" a minor question is "what do you call Macro?" A lot of people use the word in a loose fashion unfortunately to simply mean 'big close-ups' which if you do as I am sure you most likely will [ unfortunately IMO ] go for an APS-C or full frame then the 18-200 with the addition of a moderate CU lens will cover your requirements as the equivalent has for me despite having the gear to work in other ways. It is so much more convienient and all that is needed.

I suggest that for the inexperienced, which I was not too many years ago in this respect, that having interchangable lenses is not good as without the experience to know which you will need to use sadly the shot escapes you as you change lenses ....Though I have several lenses now the lens which stays on my camera is my equivalent of the 18-200.
But my indocrination came from using a bridge camera and learning the versatility of the type in experienced hands.
I am aware that I am using inferior equipment and I usually shoot to maximise my gears potential to compensate for this. So I would join with Andre in suggesting FF is a step up but many prefer not to have the disadvantages of that step and when the step down came I took it [ to MFT ] ....I'm writing to the posters here rather than the OP.
I believe that for a beginner the APS-C will give you better results quicker and easier for all the disadvantages that a make-over of a 1950's design has.

[William W]

Addressing the Original Post, and in very simple paraphrase:

The TWO key elements are that the OP is:
‘a beginner’
and
‘has a budget of $5000.00’

The fact that the OP ‘wants’ the camera kit to ‘last for six years’ is irrelevant, because if the OP finds the original choice unsuitable she will ‘update’ within the next 24 months.

And if she finds the original choice suitable, then she will be happy with the original choice for six years.

Now, if that ‘update’ does happen: then it will be predicted upon EXPERIENCE.

Therefore – as not any one of us actually has a crystal ball and can exactly vision exactly what experience the OP will gain, because even though she has definitively stated what her interest are at THIS POINT IN TIME, that is NOT necessarily what might eventuate as being the definitive after gaining 24 months EXPERIENCE under her belt.

***

Therefore, I agree 100% with the advice given by Dan Koretz, videlicet:

start slowly. Do not spend $5000 until you have some experience. You risk wasting your money because you won't know which things are most useful for YOU. . .

WW