Jump to content


Photo

$300 Camera w/ lenses


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#1 PeanutWing

PeanutWing

    Sleepy Baller

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,026 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 22 December 2011 - 08:07 PM

Recommendations? Should I save up more

#2 blueminishooter

blueminishooter

    www.facebook.com/carltonrobbinsphoto

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 304 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 December 2011 - 11:17 PM

You will definitely need more than $300. Paintball photography, or photography in general, is more expensive than playing paintball itself. You need a solid body and at least 2 good lenses for different shots. If you're looking to stay cheap, hit the Canon T3i up. Great little camera that takes awesome pictures. But then you will also need a lense with it and such. If you're not planning on taking video, you could just snag a T3 and save a few bucks, but in my opinion, take the T3i because the one time you want video you won't have it..ya know? Just my 2c worth.

-C. Robbins

CErPhotography | NexphoPhotography | Photographer Club

Photographer for:

AZPPL | Nexpho Photography | Fort Adobe Paintball Complex | CErPhotography | Cowtown Paintball | Chaparral High School Athletics


#3 Kermit

Kermit

    TechPB, sad to see the end of an era. R.I.P.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,643 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 January 2012 - 12:16 PM

Canon 10D is going for under $200 now. That will get you a great, high end(just older) body that is going to last forever and it has a very good lens with it.

http://www.ebay.com/...=item3f1223197a

Try and find something just like this kit and you will be very satisfied with your purchase. I shoot with a 10D all the time.

www.joshunruh.com if you want to see my work with a 10D.

#4 Nobben #44

Nobben #44

    Life's too short to drive boring cars

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,465 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of Fresh Fish


Posted 10 January 2012 - 12:31 PM

Used Nikon D40 or D70 might do the trick.

#5 Kermit

Kermit

    TechPB, sad to see the end of an era. R.I.P.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,643 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 January 2012 - 12:44 PM

Used Nikon D40 or D70 might do the trick.


Nikon Fanboy :rolleyes: :P

#6 Nobben #44

Nobben #44

    Life's too short to drive boring cars

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,465 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of Fresh Fish


Posted 10 January 2012 - 12:48 PM


Used Nikon D40 or D70 might do the trick.


Nikon Fanboy :rolleyes: :P


Look who's talking.

Canon Fanboy. Posted Image

#7 Kermit

Kermit

    TechPB, sad to see the end of an era. R.I.P.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,643 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 January 2012 - 12:54 PM



Used Nikon D40 or D70 might do the trick.


Nikon Fanboy :rolleyes: :P


Look who's talking.

Canon Fanboy. Posted Image


Proud of it too! ;)

#8 Nobben #44

Nobben #44

    Life's too short to drive boring cars

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,465 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of Fresh Fish


Posted 10 January 2012 - 01:07 PM

How do you think I feel when I see people getting slow shutter speeds and ISO grain indoors and I just put my ISO to 2500 and get neither. Posted Image

#9 Kermit

Kermit

    TechPB, sad to see the end of an era. R.I.P.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,643 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 January 2012 - 06:45 PM

I shoot with an f1.8 almost all the time, I've never had that problem :D

Besides, for $300 you won't be getting amazing ISO performance.

#10 Nobben #44

Nobben #44

    Life's too short to drive boring cars

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,465 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of Fresh Fish


Posted 11 January 2012 - 04:49 AM

Is your 1.8 a telezoom?
Didn't think so.

and try shooting sports in low lightning in f/5, you'll need a high ISO.

#11 Kermit

Kermit

    TechPB, sad to see the end of an era. R.I.P.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,643 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 January 2012 - 12:56 PM

Is your 1.8 a telezoom?
Didn't think so.

and try shooting sports in low lightning in f/5, you'll need a high ISO.


Regardless, for $300 you aren't going to find something with amazing ISO tolerance. If I had better ISO tolerance then I wouldn't have to shoot f1.8, but it isn't a problem.

I shoot with a 50 f1.8 prime most days, and I have shot paintball with it. Not ideal, but it worked fine.

For those of us on a budget, something I don't think you have to follow quite as tight as most of us, you can't go for a camera with uber high ISO performance.

#12 blueminishooter

blueminishooter

    www.facebook.com/carltonrobbinsphoto

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 304 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 January 2012 - 06:57 PM

Stig watch out! Kermit is a pro! lolololol.

CErPhotography | NexphoPhotography | Photographer Club

Photographer for:

AZPPL | Nexpho Photography | Fort Adobe Paintball Complex | CErPhotography | Cowtown Paintball | Chaparral High School Athletics


#13 Nobben #44

Nobben #44

    Life's too short to drive boring cars

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,465 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of Fresh Fish


Posted 12 January 2012 - 12:25 PM


Is your 1.8 a telezoom?
Didn't think so.

and try shooting sports in low lightning in f/5, you'll need a high ISO.


Regardless, for $300 you aren't going to find something with amazing ISO tolerance. If I had better ISO tolerance then I wouldn't have to shoot f1.8, but it isn't a problem.

I shoot with a 50 f1.8 prime most days, and I have shot paintball with it. Not ideal, but it worked fine.

For those of us on a budget, something I don't think you have to follow quite as tight as most of us, you can't go for a camera with uber high ISO performance.


Never said you'll get a camera with high ISO performance for under $300.

But I'm pretty sure the D40 has a better ISO tolerance than a 10D, don't quote me on that though.

Regardless, why recommend a Canon instead of a Nikon and vice versa?
For $300 a used 10D or D40 are great cameras, two high quality SLRs for a low price.

You are a Canon user, so you'll recommend Canon.
I use Nikon, so I'll recommend Nikon.
This is a discussion that will NEVER end, you and I both know that. Posted Image

The whole ISO thing is really just to spare him from buying new lenses when/if he decides that a High-end consumer Canon doesn't have the ISO tolerance he might want.


But in the end, you can't really go wrong between Canon or Nikon.
Let's leave it at that and let the OP decide if he want's a Nikon or Canon.



#14 Kermit

Kermit

    TechPB, sad to see the end of an era. R.I.P.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,643 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 January 2012 - 10:04 PM

I agree. Nikons are more for portraits, canon's really focus on sports, but you can have amazing results with either one and the differences are marginal.

#15 Nobben #44

Nobben #44

    Life's too short to drive boring cars

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,465 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of Fresh Fish


Posted 13 January 2012 - 09:26 AM

The fun thing is that I shoot more sports than anything with my Nikon. Posted Image
I have only done a small portion of portraits, usually for girls in my class.

#16 Kermit

Kermit

    TechPB, sad to see the end of an era. R.I.P.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,643 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 January 2012 - 03:54 PM

I do a good balance of either :D

Anyway, to the OP. You can get a great start up kit for this price if you go for an older, used model.

#17 Nobben #44

Nobben #44

    Life's too short to drive boring cars

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,465 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of Fresh Fish


Posted 14 January 2012 - 10:01 AM

I do a good balance of either :D

Anyway, to the OP. You can get a great start up kit for this price if you go for an older, used model.


Yup, nothing wrong using a D40 or a 10D instead of one of these new cheap cameras.

#18 Kermit

Kermit

    TechPB, sad to see the end of an era. R.I.P.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,643 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 January 2012 - 10:03 PM

Build quality and ergonomics are going to be miles better too ;)

#19 Nobben #44

Nobben #44

    Life's too short to drive boring cars

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,465 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of Fresh Fish


Posted 15 January 2012 - 08:49 AM

I think Nikons feel more rigid and solid than Canons.
And I'm not alone about that, I know some 7D owners that are very jelaous on my D7000. :D

But, there is a big one here.
The 10D looks more solid than the D40.
And with cameras like that I don't think there are any major differences.
I think the biggest difference between the two brands are more in that category known as the "Prosumer" class. Those cameras that are just as good as a pro model but lack some basic treats the pro models have.

#20 Kermit

Kermit

    TechPB, sad to see the end of an era. R.I.P.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,643 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 January 2012 - 10:04 PM

10D, 20D, all the way up to the 50D are super solid cameras. The 60D really stepped down to a more intermediate level, and the 7D kind of took over that line of prosumer cameras.. They aren't as sturdy as the Nikon D7000 because they aren't the same material, but that's not their sports level camera.

Go up to a 1D and you could drive nails with that body.

#21 Nobben #44

Nobben #44

    Life's too short to drive boring cars

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,465 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of Fresh Fish


Posted 16 January 2012 - 12:44 PM

10D, 20D, all the way up to the 50D are super solid cameras. The 60D really stepped down to a more intermediate level, and the 7D kind of took over that line of prosumer cameras.. They aren't as sturdy as the Nikon D7000 because they aren't the same material, but that's not their sports level camera.

Go up to a 1D and you could drive nails with that body.


A 1D is a fair bit more expensive than the 7D or D7000. :D

One of the major reasons I bought a D7000 over a 7D was it's construction. ( This is of course apart from that fact that I already owned Nikon mount lenses.)
I've had a electronic problem with it though, but that happened once and many months have passed since then.

I like how this turned into a discussion between us about Nikon vs. Canon.
It's not even a discussion really, just random camera chatter.

And you should join the Photographer club as our first Canon owner. :D

#22 Z3R0

Z3R0

    Spontaneous Hate Machine

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,211 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hamilton, Ontario

Posted 16 January 2012 - 02:38 PM

Keep an eye out on local classifieds (eg Craigslist). And don't be afraid to make offers lower than the asking price, so long as you keep it reasonable. You can even ask the seller if they can give you a better price. That's what I did last year and I scored a D3000 with everything it would've come with new (including kit lens), minus the USB cable, in great condition, for $215 CAD. With the remaining ~$100 you can go snag a 50mm 1.8G or 35mm 1.8G used if you look around again, or something similar to that setup. Pretty good for $300 IMO.

EDIT: oh and as for Canon vs Nikon... I was dead set on buying a T2i from all that I'd heard about it and the spec sheets I saw online. Then I compared a T2i and some Nikon in-person at a store (I want to say it was a D5000 but I'm not totally sure) and to me the Nikon just felt so much more natural. The T2i kit lens also felt really sloppy - it twisted so loosely and just felt cheap, whereas the Nikon had a smooth resistance to it that felt much better to me. I also find the Nikon settings layout easier to manage, but I guess that just comes with learning the camera.

tl;dr Nikon vs Canon is all preference and there's no way to decide between them without having both of them in front of you to directly compare

Edited by Z3R0, 16 January 2012 - 02:42 PM.

sledgehammerbanner2.jpg
05 Cyborg, 06 Cyborg, PM8, Hybrid NXT, E-Mag

Classic/Pump/SC Mag, Brassterling, CCM 86'd SuperStocker, 2008 Grey Ghost, VM-68 EXC


#23 Kermit

Kermit

    TechPB, sad to see the end of an era. R.I.P.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,643 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 January 2012 - 03:59 PM

I like how this turned into a discussion between us about Nikon vs. Canon.


It was bound to happen sometime :P

Checking out that club now!

#24 Z3R0

Z3R0

    Spontaneous Hate Machine

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,211 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hamilton, Ontario

Posted 16 January 2012 - 05:11 PM

Also it's funny you say Nikons are for portraits and Canons are for sports - I always had the opposite impression, even before I really took a real interest in photography.

sledgehammerbanner2.jpg
05 Cyborg, 06 Cyborg, PM8, Hybrid NXT, E-Mag

Classic/Pump/SC Mag, Brassterling, CCM 86'd SuperStocker, 2008 Grey Ghost, VM-68 EXC


#25 PeanutWing

PeanutWing

    Sleepy Baller

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,026 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 20 January 2012 - 12:15 PM

Just now came back to this thread, thanks guys

And hi, Kermit. Haven't seen you in a while

Edited by PeanutWing, 20 January 2012 - 12:15 PM.


#26 Nobben #44

Nobben #44

    Life's too short to drive boring cars

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,465 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of Fresh Fish


Posted 20 January 2012 - 01:54 PM

Just now came back to this thread, thanks guys

And hi, Kermit. Haven't seen you in a while



There should be some useful information within the the rambling between Kermit and I.
Also, feel free to stop by the photographer club is you need any help or advice.

#27 Striker

Striker

    Master Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,019 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Beyond the 50


Posted 01 February 2012 - 12:41 AM

I picked up a Canon XS with lens for $350....it does the job, just need a new lens eventually

#28 Jalen

Jalen

    Resident Psychopath

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,613 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 01 February 2012 - 04:39 PM

Ideally for paintball you'd want a 70-200mm lens. They generally go for about $1000 used.

But since that probably isn't an option, a 70-300mm (and whatever Canon's equivalent is) goes for $300-400 used.

That's all before the camera. Depending on which model you go for, I'd say (for a decent camera) it'll run about $500 used.

Save up.
I only play paintball so I can tell dirty jokes.

#29 PeanutWing

PeanutWing

    Sleepy Baller

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,026 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 13 February 2012 - 06:54 PM

Alright, I decided on Canon... Its ment for paintball, The reason I'm buying this is I decided my field needs more recognition along with the teams that play there, and posting around the internet has brought a lot of good on my field.

It does need to take video, though

Edited by PeanutWing, 13 February 2012 - 06:58 PM.


#30 Kermit

Kermit

    TechPB, sad to see the end of an era. R.I.P.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,643 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 February 2012 - 11:31 PM

Well, if you want video, you need to spend some more cash. $500 minimum for a T2i.

#31 Nobben #44

Nobben #44

    Life's too short to drive boring cars

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,465 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of Fresh Fish


Posted 14 February 2012 - 11:00 AM

Alright, I decided on Canon... Its ment for paintball, The reason I'm buying this is I decided my field needs more recognition along with the teams that play there, and posting around the internet has brought a lot of good on my field.

It does need to take video, though


How is Canon mean for paintball? Just asking.

Decent DSLR with video would be the T2i aka 550D.

#32 PeanutWing

PeanutWing

    Sleepy Baller

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,026 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 14 February 2012 - 11:33 AM

Thats what I figured.... Saving all dat moneh

Thats what I figured.... Saving all dat moneh



Kermit mentioned that the Canon was ment more for sports

#33 Kermit

Kermit

    TechPB, sad to see the end of an era. R.I.P.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,643 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 February 2012 - 12:13 PM

Thats what I figured.... Saving all dat moneh


Thats what I figured.... Saving all dat moneh



Kermit mentioned that the Canon was ment more for sports


Their high ends lean towards that while Nikon leans more towards the studio aspect(Crop sensors vs Full Frames). You can use either for either and you won't really notice a difference. I still suggest Canon's for video though.

#34 PeanutWing

PeanutWing

    Sleepy Baller

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,026 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 14 February 2012 - 03:22 PM

I'll see what quality I can get out of the "720p" On my phone... But we all know how that goes...

#35 Kermit

Kermit

    TechPB, sad to see the end of an era. R.I.P.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,643 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 February 2012 - 05:06 PM

I'll see what quality I can get out of the "720p" On my phone... But we all know how that goes...


No control of shutter speed or aperture, that's why you see phones fall flat.

#36 Nobben #44

Nobben #44

    Life's too short to drive boring cars

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,465 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of Fresh Fish


Posted 14 February 2012 - 06:09 PM

Unless you are buying a D800 or a D4 from Nikon, canon is the way to go with video, ONLY because of 60fps filming.
Picture quality isn't really camera based due to both being great.
Canon lenses have better IS though, but that's what we have Sigma for. :D


Cropped sensors aren't really better for sports, that depends on the camera.
The D3x is a studio camera, the D3s is a more sports based camera, both full frame.
So that statement is completely false and hollow. Those things rely much, much more on optics.


Best thing you can do is try out the cameras you like and see which you like best.
NOTHING will be better than the camera you are using to take pictures with as long as you like it. Framing and lighting are far more important than all those other things.

#37 Kermit

Kermit

    TechPB, sad to see the end of an era. R.I.P.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,643 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 February 2012 - 08:15 PM

That is a fact. You can get equal results with either in terms of pictures. I just prefer a crop sensor myself for sports.

#38 PeanutWing

PeanutWing

    Sleepy Baller

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,026 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 15 February 2012 - 11:45 AM

The Rebel T2i records in 1080 p and I can get it for $450 with a lenses, and my dad has an older lenses from a Canon that uses film, would I be able to use that on the rebel?

#39 Kermit

Kermit

    TechPB, sad to see the end of an era. R.I.P.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,643 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 February 2012 - 11:53 AM

The Rebel T2i records in 1080 p and I can get it for $450 with a lenses, and my dad has an older lenses from a Canon that uses film, would I be able to use that on the rebel?


If it uses an EF mount, yes. The only real downside to old lenses is that they don't always have autofocus, which doesn't matter with video anyway.

#40 Nobben #44

Nobben #44

    Life's too short to drive boring cars

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,465 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of Fresh Fish


Posted 15 February 2012 - 12:00 PM

That is a fact. You can get equal results with either in terms of pictures. I just prefer a crop sensor myself for sports.

Full format will always have less ISO noise. But other than that, yes the picture quality won't change.
And just because you prefer them doesn't mean their better for sports. Just curious, have you ever tried full format for sports? I've tried the D700 for a couple of shots and I just loved it. The only reason I haven't got a full format camera yet is due to the price tag they have.

#41 PeanutWing

PeanutWing

    Sleepy Baller

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,026 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 15 February 2012 - 01:35 PM

Is there a way to protect cameras like the 550D? Or is it rugged enough to go without?

#42 Kermit

Kermit

    TechPB, sad to see the end of an era. R.I.P.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,643 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 February 2012 - 02:39 PM

It's a plastic, unsealed camera. I'd suggest using a rain bag or a silicon cover.

#43 PeanutWing

PeanutWing

    Sleepy Baller

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,026 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 16 February 2012 - 10:40 AM

Alright. And what kind of lense would you reccomend? I'll be filming from the net, on the inside.

#44 Kermit

Kermit

    TechPB, sad to see the end of an era. R.I.P.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,643 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 February 2012 - 03:41 PM

From the net, I like a 70-300.




There is some good information for shooting with a DSLR.

Edited by Kermit, 16 February 2012 - 03:41 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users