[littleloopy15]

So for my birthday I am thinking that I am gonna get a camera, whether I treat myself for it or I get it from someone. This would be my first "real" camera that I will be taking sport photos with. So I am gonna be looking to spend $300-$500 on this camera. I would also be taking "normal" pictures with the camera as well, like for family parties, nothing special though. So in all I am looking to buy a camera that will be good for sport pictures and everyday pictures. I will look into buying used too. Thanks! <br>

[Jordanbepumpinfools]

im assuming you want a dslr.....do you want to shoot video too?.......does the age of the camera matter?

you can find a nikon d40 pretty cheap with a lens or two.

the canon 10d is also a good camera aswell.

if you want something a little more "advanced" the nikon d3000 and d3100 will run you right around 500 new.

or the canon t1i which should be right around 500 aswell.

either way, any of those cameras will take care of you, to me its all in what glass(lenses) you buy, most of the cameras do the same thing with the addition of a few bells and whistles here and there...its really up to you, im no expert though.

[littleloopy15]

Jordanbepumpinfools, on 16 February 2012 - 09:33 PM, said:

im assuming you want a dslr.....do you want to shoot video too?.......does the age of the camera matter?

you can find a nikon d40 pretty cheap with a lens or two.

the canon 10d is also a good camera aswell.

if you want something a little more "advanced" the nikon d3000 and d3100 will run you right around 500 new.

or the canon t1i which should be right around 500 aswell.

either way, any of those cameras will take care of you, to me its all in what glass(lenses) you buy, most of the cameras do the same thing with the addition of a few bells and whistles here and there...its really up to you, im no expert though.

nope not shooting video, and I just want good sharp pictures. How old the camera is doesnt matter.

[Jordanbepumpinfools]

you could most likely find a nikon d40 with some lenses for no more than 500, I would look on ebay and craigslist to see what you can find regarding that camera.

[Nobben #44]

littleloopy15, on 16 February 2012 - 09:45 PM, said:

Jordanbepumpinfools, on 16 February 2012 - 09:33 PM, said:

im assuming you want a dslr.....do you want to shoot video too?.......does the age of the camera matter?

you can find a nikon d40 pretty cheap with a lens or two.

the canon 10d is also a good camera aswell.

if you want something a little more "advanced" the nikon d3000 and d3100 will run you right around 500 new.

or the canon t1i which should be right around 500 aswell.

either way, any of those cameras will take care of you, to me its all in what glass(lenses) you buy, most of the cameras do the same thing with the addition of a few bells and whistles here and there...its really up to you, im no expert though.

nope not shooting video, and I just want good sharp pictures. How old the camera is doesnt matter.

Remember any decent DSLR now will give you good enough performance.
The lenses are where the changes are at. Cheap camera and good lenses are better than vise versa.

[littleloopy15]

what is a good lend for paintball then? because I will just get the camera body and then buy the lens separate.

[Pakistani]

as stig said, a good lens will do more for you than a good camera body.
based off that i would suggest going canon over nikon in this specific case. canon lenses typically run a little less than their nikon counterparts.
picking up a lens that will cover the 200mm focal length will be pretty good for paintball. the "standard" paintball lens seems to be the 70-200mm lens(runs from $500-2300+)


2 notes to this:
1. canon / nikon quality is one and the same, imo. While there are definitely reasons to pick one over the other, few of those are things a beginner would be concerned with.
I know people who have sold all of their nikon gear to buy canon gear. and i know people who have done the exact opposite.
there are a lot of reasons to go one or the other, but imo, the lens prices are some of the most compelling to go with canon(also video functionality is another one, but you said you weren't interested in that)

2. you can buy 3rd party lenses(tamron, tokina, sigma are "the big 3") but sometimes youll find canon/nikon lenses have the best QC. often times you get better image quality too.

[littleloopy15]

Pakistani, on 20 February 2012 - 04:00 AM, said:

as stig said, a good lens will do more for you than a good camera body.
based off that i would suggest going canon over nikon in this specific case. canon lenses typically run a little less than their nikon counterparts.
picking up a lens that will cover the 200mm focal length will be pretty good for paintball. the "standard" paintball lens seems to be the 70-200mm lens(runs from $500-2300+)


2 notes to this:
1. canon / nikon quality is one and the same, imo. While there are definitely reasons to pick one over the other, few of those are things a beginner would be concerned with.
I know people who have sold all of their nikon gear to buy canon gear. and i know people who have done the exact opposite.
there are a lot of reasons to go one or the other, but imo, the lens prices are some of the most compelling to go with canon(also video functionality is another one, but you said you weren't interested in that)

2. you can buy 3rd party lenses(tamron, tokina, sigma are "the big 3") but sometimes youll find canon/nikon lenses have the best QC. often times you get better image quality too.

Thanks for the info but I am looking for the camera total to be within $500. And yes I understand that you can get the greatest camera for that price but I am just looking for a decent camera that will take good pics for paintball. So while I would love or be able to afford a 200mm lens to take those great pictures, it just in my budget right now. Again thanks for he info. Also I won buying the camera for abou $350 so that leaves $150-$200 for a lens.

My next question is, is the lens I wld get with the. Camera be as good as the lens I would be spending $200 on? Thanks!

[Nobben #44]

Pakistani, on 20 February 2012 - 04:00 AM, said:

as stig said, a good lens will do more for you than a good camera body.
based off that i would suggest going canon over nikon in this specific case. canon lenses typically run a little less than their nikon counterparts.
picking up a lens that will cover the 200mm focal length will be pretty good for paintball. the "standard" paintball lens seems to be the 70-200mm lens(runs from $500-2300+)


2 notes to this:
1. canon / nikon quality is one and the same, imo. While there are definitely reasons to pick one over the other, few of those are things a beginner would be concerned with.
I know people who have sold all of their nikon gear to buy canon gear. and i know people who have done the exact opposite.
there are a lot of reasons to go one or the other, but imo, the lens prices are some of the most compelling to go with canon(also video functionality is another one, but you said you weren't interested in that)

2. you can buy 3rd party lenses(tamron, tokina, sigma are "the big 3") but sometimes youll find canon/nikon lenses have the best QC. often times you get better image quality too.

Canon L lenses arn't really that much cheaper than Nikon's pro lenses.

Sigma makes great lenses, including the "best" 50mm f/1.4 on the market now. Not only is reviewers all over kind to this lens, but I have personaly tested this up against Canon's 50mm f/1.4. A little vignetting and the focus is about the same, but overall better on everything else, espacially bokeh. (This is more expensive than both Canon's and Nikon's though)
I know the Sigma 100-300mm f/4 lenses work great with at least Nikon's D300 and D700. The guys at Hybrid Foto use those.
Third party doesn't automaticly mean worse quality. Still, original lesnes are usually the "safe bet".

If you get a Nikon D70 for about $200, you can get a nikon 55-200 for around $100 or a 70-300 for around $350.
You'd pretty much be set up for paintball photography.

I would advise you strongly to go for either Nikon or Canon, you pretty much can't go wrong.


That being said, I kind of want to change my D7000 to a 7D. Before I do any major lens buying.
Why? Canon is supposedly better at customer service. Nikon's amazing noise performance and rugged build is what keeps me.

This post has been edited by Nobben #44: 20 February 2012 - 12:27 PM

[Pakistani]

Nobben #44, on 20 February 2012 - 12:25 PM, said:

Pakistani, on 20 February 2012 - 04:00 AM, said:

as stig said, a good lens will do more for you than a good camera body.
based off that i would suggest going canon over nikon in this specific case. canon lenses typically run a little less than their nikon counterparts.
picking up a lens that will cover the 200mm focal length will be pretty good for paintball. the "standard" paintball lens seems to be the 70-200mm lens(runs from $500-2300+)


2 notes to this:
1. canon / nikon quality is one and the same, imo. While there are definitely reasons to pick one over the other, few of those are things a beginner would be concerned with.
I know people who have sold all of their nikon gear to buy canon gear. and i know people who have done the exact opposite.
there are a lot of reasons to go one or the other, but imo, the lens prices are some of the most compelling to go with canon(also video functionality is another one, but you said you weren't interested in that)

2. you can buy 3rd party lenses(tamron, tokina, sigma are "the big 3") but sometimes youll find canon/nikon lenses have the best QC. often times you get better image quality too.

Canon L lenses arn't really that much cheaper than Nikon's pro lenses.

Sigma makes great lenses, including the "best" 50mm f/1.4 on the market now. Not only is reviewers all over kind to this lens, but I have personaly tested this up against Canon's 50mm f/1.4. A little vignetting and the focus is about the same, but overall better on everything else, espacially bokeh. (This is more expensive than both Canon's and Nikon's though)
I know the Sigma 100-300mm f/4 lenses work great with at least Nikon's D300 and D700. The guys at Hybrid Foto use those.
Third party doesn't automaticly mean worse quality. Still, original lesnes are usually the "safe bet".

If you get a Nikon D70 for about $200, you can get a nikon 55-200 for around $100 or a 70-300 for around $350.
You'd pretty much be set up for paintball photography.

I would advise you strongly to go for either Nikon or Canon, you pretty much can't go wrong.


That being said, I kind of want to change my D7000 to a 7D. Before I do any major lens buying.
Why? Canon is supposedly better at customer service. Nikon's amazing noise performance and rugged build is what keeps me.

can't really disagree with anything you said. I have a sigma 30 1.4 that i love, but i bought it knowing i was playing the "sigma lottery".
it front focused when i got it, but luckily i was able to do an AF micro adjust in camera.

the 7D is def. a diesel body, i could pound nails with it haha.

[Pakistani]

littleloopy15, on 20 February 2012 - 08:00 AM, said:

Pakistani, on 20 February 2012 - 04:00 AM, said:

as stig said, a good lens will do more for you than a good camera body.
based off that i would suggest going canon over nikon in this specific case. canon lenses typically run a little less than their nikon counterparts.
picking up a lens that will cover the 200mm focal length will be pretty good for paintball. the "standard" paintball lens seems to be the 70-200mm lens(runs from $500-2300+)


2 notes to this:
1. canon / nikon quality is one and the same, imo. While there are definitely reasons to pick one over the other, few of those are things a beginner would be concerned with.
I know people who have sold all of their nikon gear to buy canon gear. and i know people who have done the exact opposite.
there are a lot of reasons to go one or the other, but imo, the lens prices are some of the most compelling to go with canon(also video functionality is another one, but you said you weren't interested in that)

2. you can buy 3rd party lenses(tamron, tokina, sigma are "the big 3") but sometimes youll find canon/nikon lenses have the best QC. often times you get better image quality too.

Thanks for the info but I am looking for the camera total to be within $500. And yes I understand that you can get the greatest camera for that price but I am just looking for a decent camera that will take good pics for paintball. So while I would love or be able to afford a 200mm lens to take those great pictures, it just in my budget right now. Again thanks for he info. Also I won buying the camera for abou $350 so that leaves $150-$200 for a lens.

My next question is, is the lens I wld get with the. Camera be as good as the lens I would be spending $200 on? Thanks!

the last question you wrote was a little hard to read. are you asking if the lens that comes with the camera is as good as a $200 lens you would buy separately?
if that is your question then its kind of a tough one to answer.

lenses are pretty expensive, to be honest. canons standard "kit" lens, the one that comes in all of the lower end camera packages, is an 18-55 IS. that lens is a $200 lens if you buy it separately.
with a $500 budget, i would highly recommend buying used to get the most bang out of your buck. hop on ebay or craigslist and you can find good deals on great cameras.

on ebay they had a 30D with a 17-55 lens for under $500. although the lens isnt ideal for pb photography, it will def. get the job done. you'd also be getting a great prosumer level camera for cheaper than you can get an entry level dslr.

that all being said, i personally dont think $200 is much to spend on a lens. IMO, any lens you buy for $200 isnt worth the $200 you would spend on it. whatever you end up buying, id suggest buying as a kit. i think you would waste a little money if you bought the 2 things separately.

[littleloopy15]

Pakistani, on 20 February 2012 - 02:39 PM, said:

littleloopy15, on 20 February 2012 - 08:00 AM, said:

Pakistani, on 20 February 2012 - 04:00 AM, said:

as stig said, a good lens will do more for you than a good camera body.
based off that i would suggest going canon over nikon in this specific case. canon lenses typically run a little less than their nikon counterparts.
picking up a lens that will cover the 200mm focal length will be pretty good for paintball. the "standard" paintball lens seems to be the 70-200mm lens(runs from $500-2300+)


2 notes to this:
1. canon / nikon quality is one and the same, imo. While there are definitely reasons to pick one over the other, few of those are things a beginner would be concerned with.
I know people who have sold all of their nikon gear to buy canon gear. and i know people who have done the exact opposite.
there are a lot of reasons to go one or the other, but imo, the lens prices are some of the most compelling to go with canon(also video functionality is another one, but you said you weren't interested in that)

2. you can buy 3rd party lenses(tamron, tokina, sigma are "the big 3") but sometimes youll find canon/nikon lenses have the best QC. often times you get better image quality too.

Thanks for the info but I am looking for the camera total to be within $500. And yes I understand that you can get the greatest camera for that price but I am just looking for a decent camera that will take good pics for paintball. So while I would love or be able to afford a 200mm lens to take those great pictures, it just in my budget right now. Again thanks for he info. Also I won buying the camera for abou $350 so that leaves $150-$200 for a lens.

My next question is, is the lens I wld get with the. Camera be as good as the lens I would be spending $200 on? Thanks!

the last question you wrote was a little hard to read. are you asking if the lens that comes with the camera is as good as a $200 lens you would buy separately?
if that is your question then its kind of a tough one to answer.

lenses are pretty expensive, to be honest. canons standard "kit" lens, the one that comes in all of the lower end camera packages, is an 18-55 IS. that lens is a $200 lens if you buy it separately.
with a $500 budget, i would highly recommend buying used to get the most bang out of your buck. hop on ebay or craigslist and you can find good deals on great cameras.

on ebay they had a 30D with a 17-55 lens for under $500. although the lens isnt ideal for pb photography, it will def. get the job done. you'd also be getting a great prosumer level camera for cheaper than you can get an entry level dslr.

that all being said, i personally dont think $200 is much to spend on a lens. IMO, any lens you buy for $200 isnt worth the $200 you would spend on it. whatever you end up buying, id suggest buying as a kit. i think you would waste a little money if you bought the 2 things separately.

alright any camera that you would suggest for $500? My parents/ family members said they will all pitch in and get me it. I dont want to go to expensive on it though because I still want money to save for my car hahha. So I may be able to go a little higher then $500 but not by much.

[Pakistani]

you could look for these: used 10-50D(50D would be cutting it close to your budget, worth a look around though) or a used T1i, T2i, or T3i(all of those should be available in your budget, probably even with a lens).
you could most definitely look for the T1/2/3i new, but it might be slightly over your budget(t3i is $800 with lens).

obviously Nikon has a counterpart to all of those bodies, im just not familiar enough with nikon models to tell you what they run.

if you dont mind buying used, id suggest buying used. you'll end up getting more for your money.
although i won't deny the draw of a bnib camera.

littleloopy15, on 23 February 2012 - 12:36 AM, said:

Pakistani, on 20 February 2012 - 02:39 PM, said:

littleloopy15, on 20 February 2012 - 08:00 AM, said:

Pakistani, on 20 February 2012 - 04:00 AM, said:

as stig said, a good lens will do more for you than a good camera body.
based off that i would suggest going canon over nikon in this specific case. canon lenses typically run a little less than their nikon counterparts.
picking up a lens that will cover the 200mm focal length will be pretty good for paintball. the "standard" paintball lens seems to be the 70-200mm lens(runs from $500-2300+)


2 notes to this:
1. canon / nikon quality is one and the same, imo. While there are definitely reasons to pick one over the other, few of those are things a beginner would be concerned with.
I know people who have sold all of their nikon gear to buy canon gear. and i know people who have done the exact opposite.
there are a lot of reasons to go one or the other, but imo, the lens prices are some of the most compelling to go with canon(also video functionality is another one, but you said you weren't interested in that)

2. you can buy 3rd party lenses(tamron, tokina, sigma are "the big 3") but sometimes youll find canon/nikon lenses have the best QC. often times you get better image quality too.

Thanks for the info but I am looking for the camera total to be within $500. And yes I understand that you can get the greatest camera for that price but I am just looking for a decent camera that will take good pics for paintball. So while I would love or be able to afford a 200mm lens to take those great pictures, it just in my budget right now. Again thanks for he info. Also I won buying the camera for abou $350 so that leaves $150-$200 for a lens.

My next question is, is the lens I wld get with the. Camera be as good as the lens I would be spending $200 on? Thanks!

the last question you wrote was a little hard to read. are you asking if the lens that comes with the camera is as good as a $200 lens you would buy separately?
if that is your question then its kind of a tough one to answer.

lenses are pretty expensive, to be honest. canons standard "kit" lens, the one that comes in all of the lower end camera packages, is an 18-55 IS. that lens is a $200 lens if you buy it separately.
with a $500 budget, i would highly recommend buying used to get the most bang out of your buck. hop on ebay or craigslist and you can find good deals on great cameras.

on ebay they had a 30D with a 17-55 lens for under $500. although the lens isnt ideal for pb photography, it will def. get the job done. you'd also be getting a great prosumer level camera for cheaper than you can get an entry level dslr.

that all being said, i personally dont think $200 is much to spend on a lens. IMO, any lens you buy for $200 isnt worth the $200 you would spend on it. whatever you end up buying, id suggest buying as a kit. i think you would waste a little money if you bought the 2 things separately.

alright any camera that you would suggest for $500? My parents/ family members said they will all pitch in and get me it. I dont want to go to expensive on it though because I still want money to save for my car hahha. So I may be able to go a little higher then $500 but not by much.

[littleloopy15]

Pakistani, on 23 February 2012 - 03:14 AM, said:

you could look for these: used 10-50D(50D would be cutting it close to your budget, worth a look around though) or a used T1i, T2i, or T3i(all of those should be available in your budget, probably even with a lens).
you could most definitely look for the T1/2/3i new, but it might be slightly over your budget(t3i is $800 with lens).

obviously Nikon has a counterpart to all of those bodies, im just not familiar enough with nikon models to tell you what they run.

if you dont mind buying used, id suggest buying used. you'll end up getting more for your money.
although i won't deny the draw of a bnib camera.

yeah I dont mind buying used, so I will look around for those camera. Also when buying used what lens should I look for? I know that the standard is 18-55, what a better lens that the camera could come with and still be within my budget?

[Pakistani]

honestly, at the $500 mark, id be surprised to see anything but an 18-55. you might be able to find a 55-200, in that range but thats simply better because of the local length. I had one in the past and i wouldn't really say the lens was sharper than the kit lens.

[littleloopy15]

Pakistani, on 24 February 2012 - 04:04 AM, said:

honestly, at the $500 mark, id be surprised to see anything but an 18-55. you might be able to find a 55-200, in that range but thats simply better because of the local length. I had one in the past and i wouldn't really say the lens was sharper than the kit lens.

ok thanks! will keep my eye out for some of those camera you mentioned. Thanks again!

[Jalen]

Used Nikon D40, no doubt.

From there it's a used 55-200mm VR for sports. Ideally, a used 70-300mm VR would kick more ass.

[littleloopy15]

Jalen, on 29 February 2012 - 02:46 PM, said:

Used Nikon D40, no doubt.

From there it's a used 55-200mm VR for sports. Ideally, a used 70-300mm VR would kick more ass.

how much is the going price for those two lens? just so I know how much to pay for them.

[Nobben #44]

After a quick search on Ebay.

Around $300 used and $4-500 new. The Nikon 70-300 VR is a great lens. Almost every paintball picture I've taken have been with one.

[littleloopy15]

Nobben #44, on 29 February 2012 - 03:29 PM, said:

After a quick search on Ebay.

Around $300 used and $4-500 new. The Nikon 70-300 VR is a great lens. Almost every paintball picture I've taken have been with one.

cool, will keep my eye out for good deals!