Advice

MRichardsonMRichardson Posts: 9,159 Admiral
Playing around with my uncle's T1i, trying to get a feel for whether I like this photography stuff enough to start throwing $$ at it.
I've learned enough to know the $ should be in the glass, not the body.   But any recommendations as to whether I should keep the old body and add lenses, or upgrade to a new body (with better AF, ISO, etc).  I get that the gains in MP/sensor is not the most important thing, seems the 15.X MP sensor from 9 yrs ago is still plenty sharp/detailed...  what other things should I look for...?
I have never seen live bones, but I know that they are often used by rich people to decorate the interior.

Replies

  • FlashFlash Posts: 11,172 AG
    No need to buy new unless you want the latest/greatest. Almost all my cameras and lenses were bought used off eBay.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

    Never seem more learned than the people you are with. Wear your learning like a pocket watch and keep it hidden. Do not pull it out to count the hours, but give the time when you are asked. --- Lord Chesterfield
  • JWTJWT Posts: 614 Officer
    It is a very capable camera. upgrading would be a call as to whether the features on the newer bodies would be worth the money to you. a lot depends on what you plan to shoot. 
  • swampwalkerswampwalker Posts: 2,351 Captain
    Heck MR, those are super photos! A camera in the hand is a picture for the frame or post. It may be little like our desires to upgrade a scope or binocs, when what we have works great.
    The original - "Renaissance Redneck"
  • FstopMiamiFstopMiami MiamiPosts: 23 Greenhorn
    Try and "outshoot" your existing body before upgrading.  You can't by "Technique or framing". A good eye outshoots a better body all the time...


    Armando
  • biglarbiglar Posts: 181 Deckhand
    If the body is OK and all features function properly, put your money in the glass - but do your due diligence.  My favorite, by far, lens on my NIkon D300s is a Tamron 18-270.  Not cheap in dollars, but very reasonable compared to Nikon lenses.  It's a little slow in focusing, which I keep in mind when composing.
  • MRichardsonMRichardson Posts: 9,159 Admiral
    Cool, thanks for the advice.   It confirms what I thought, and I'll put the $$ towards a solid lens up to 400/500mm range as my favorite right now is wildlife/birds.  A good tripod as well for landscape stuff.
    I have never seen live bones, but I know that they are often used by rich people to decorate the interior.
  • biglarbiglar Posts: 181 Deckhand
    edited July 23 #9
    Cool, thanks for the advice.   It confirms what I thought, and I'll put the $$ towards a solid lens up to 400/500mm range as my favorite right now is wildlife/birds.  A good tripod as well for landscape stuff.
    It's surprising the difference a small change in mm makes.  Very common lower zoom range is 24mm, which works quite well.  Check out an 18mm before you buy.  My Tamron 18-270 catches a lot of stuff that a 24mm can't - esp. indoors - and I "really" like it.  The high end compensates.

    I find that the 270mm high end is very good for most needs.  Anything higher is almost impossible to hold steady - and I carry a tripod, too.  Remember to turn off image stabilization when using the tripod.  My little Nikon B700 has a 60X superzoom (1200mm equiv, I think) - great for gee-whiz, but almost impossible to hold steady, or even to find your target with.  Impractical in real life.

    I do have a 1.8X teleconverter for my D300s and it does work well, but rarely use it.  Gets to be a hassle out in the field, fussing with lenses and trying not to let dust into camera, drop them or get fingers all over the lenses.  Quality in a teleconverter is critical - faults are magnified.
  • JWTJWT Posts: 614 Officer
    for birds & wildlife the 1st generation Canon 100-400 is a great "budget"  lens now. some people don't like the push/pull zoom but i find it easier to use than the screw type. they can be had for less than 1K on E-bay. the gen II lens is great but they are holding their value. if you want to really go big, i like the Sigma 150-600. a great lens also under 1K - new! 
    the difference between the reach of the 400 & 600 will probably make you want the longer lens. the Sigma rarely leaves my camera.

    i don't generally carry a tripod for wildlife, too limiting to me. as long as you have good light you can run shutter speeds fast enough to get crisp shots. or you can always bump up the ISO tho the T1 is kind of "noisy" at higher settings tho. this is one area that some of the newer bodies do better. 
  • MRichardsonMRichardson Posts: 9,159 Admiral
    Better upper ISO is probably the one thing that'll enjoy in whatever I get next.  I'm looking at that Sigma 100-600 pretty hard right now.  I've learned  the trade-off such zoom combined with high shutter speeds has on light gathering ability.  

    It's like boats.  Big, sharp or bright - pick any 2.
    I have never seen live bones, but I know that they are often used by rich people to decorate the interior.
  • JWTJWT Posts: 614 Officer
  • PicmanPicman Posts: 238 Deckhand
    Get a Nikon D500 and a nikon 200/500 lens and You are set for wildlife for life...
Sign In or Register to comment.