<p>Finally ready for the point and shoot jump to DSLR. I am here to seek advices from equipment to software.</p>
<p>I don’t want to start slow from a lower model. My research says a package such as “Nikon D200, 10.2 Megapixel, SLR, Digital Camera w/ Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S DX VR II Autofocus Lens Kit” is a great place to start. What do you think? What will be a fair price for such a set? The lowest I have found online is around $2K including shipping.</p>
<p>Also, what software should I get? I have seen so many very beautiful photos and would love to learn how to make a couple of them myslef.</p>
<p>My husband went from a D-1X to the D200. Autofocus is great if you’re over 40. That’s a nice lens. B&H Photovideo seems to have the best prices. </p>
<p>If you want to get out the full artillery on the photos, you’ll want the latest version of Photoshop. However, it might be cheaper to buy an older version (I use 5.5 but there are 6 and 7 too) on EBay–you get almost as many features, more cheaply.</p>
<p>Photoshop CS3 is the newest version of PS, and worth every penny, but you can definitely make do with the older versions. </p>
<p>Good choice with the 18-200mm lens: it will be a lot less frustrating in the beginning when you don’t have to switch back and forth between 2 lenses for close-up and faraway shots. I’m personally not familiar with Nikon-compatible lenses, but if you can help it, try to get a lens that can do a larger aperture…the larger the F value, the better! Sometimes low-light conditions are really annoying with a lens that doesn’t go down to a large enough aperture.</p>
<p>The D200 is a good camera; I’ve heard many praises of it. Have fun! You know what they say…“The best way to get someone broke is to buy him/her a DSLR…” ;)</p>
<p>dmd77, have you purchased from B&H Photovideo before? They do have a very attractive package #9995 + a 2G Momery card for ~$2300. </p>
<p>I have read so many stories about gray market products from online retailers. So I would rather pay a little more to buy from sites such as Amazon, buy.com etc.</p>
<p>Yes! B&H is VERY good! I ordered 2 cameras (both used) and a couple of lenses (one used and one new) from them in the last year. Their returns department is super good, too! </p>
<p>The D200 is a great camera. That’s what my old photo prof. used at his studio and tried to talk me into getting after my first Rebel XT acted up. I second getting Photoshop. I use CS, and probably wouldn’t go any earlier just because of all of the improvements they made in CS.
Oh, and I couldn’t agree more with the comment about that getting a DSLR is the fastest way to go broke. I finally gave up my DSLRs in favor of a nice point and shoot (Nikon L5. I can manage to get shots out of it that are just as good as the ones I got with my D50!).</p>
<p>My personal feeling is that 10 megapixels is overkill - like getting a 600 HP engine in a car - bragging rights, yes, but the number of times you’ll actually use it is minimal. I’d be surprised if you ever actually needed more than 6, which is what the base level SLRs have. My feeling is that you should get a decent SLR body, spend on the best lens you will actually need, a big memory card (cheap), good batteries (also cheap) and decent software, and I’ll bet you don’t have time to get to the top of the learning/competence curve before you die. I went with Pentax because we still have some excellent Pentax lenses from our old K-1000 which are usable for a lot of “extreme” shots (without auto focus, etc.) on the digital body and got a camera with a 18-55 fully automatic zoom lens for under $700. With my old lenses I have more range than I know what to do with. Being poor sucks, remember? You could be $1300 richer just by not buying more camera than you’ll ever use.</p>
<p>klude, U so funny. Do you remember a very famous person said, something like, 2 M momery is the most a PC would ever need? I bet you that we will see 20 Meg cameras being common ones in 5 years.</p>
<p>Since I intend to develop this hobby well into my retirement, I hope I have at least another 40 years to master a digital camera. </p>
<p>Yes, being poor does suck. I was going for the EOS 5D but can’t afford all the lens with the base body being twice as much as D200. To spend $2500, I have to get DW’s approval. You see the points here. Being poor sucks.</p>
<p>sorry to interrupt, does D200 capture full frame image like Canon 5D?</p>
<p>to OP: I have a D50 and I’m seriously considering getting the D200 standard lens (the one you mentioned) because it is a good all around lens. With 18-200 you don’t have to switch lenses which can become a hassle ( I switched 70-300 and 18-55 lens often and it’s just suck) </p>
<p>Also, the 18-200 mm lens have image stabilizer which can be helpful when you want to take night shot but forgot to bring a tripod (happens very often for me)</p>
<p>If you aren’t an experienced photographer already, you’d get much better results here: <a href=“http://www.nikonschool.com/courses.html[/url]”>http://www.nikonschool.com/courses.html</a> than by buying a $2,000 camera. Overall, a good photographer with a $200 camera will create better images than a gear-geek with a great camera. The money I spent at the Nikon School when I was 19(!) was the best I ever spent on photography. I parlayed that knowledge and a used $200 Nikon FTn into a 3-year college student career as a news photographer for a small newspaper. I was never Ansel Adams or Henri Cartier-Bresson, but I can still make more effective and interesting images with a cheap Kodak digital than 99% of the public, or about half of serious hobbyists.</p>
<p>It’s the picture, not the camera that matters, and some place like the Nikon School will help someone learn what makes a good image, and how to get there. There are lots of photo schools, by the way, it’s just that I know the Nikon School packs a lot of useful material into a short course, and has been doing so for at least 30 years. Good luck and have fun. It’s a great hobby.</p>
<p>I agree with WashDad. There is a local professional nature photographer whose images I have always admired and who has had his images featured on covers of magazines. I got to talking with him at a local art show about his techniques and his equipment. It turns out that the equipment (lenses) that he was using was inferior to what I already owned and far from what is considered “professional” quality.</p>
<p>Both my kids have Canon AE1s which are great cameras</p>
<p>I saw that Costco had SLR Nikons with multiple lenses- but without knowing what sort of use you are going to be getting out of your camera it is hard to know what to recommend.</p>
<p>What sort of photos do you like to take? What sort of effects do you want?
Are you going to carry a tripod and other lenses with you?</p>
<p>I agree with Washdad, it is isn’t the camera as much as the shot.
My dad was a dedicated amateur photographer- ( He belonged to the Bellevue Camera Club until his death -built a dedicated darkroom in our basement, developed and printed all his own shots- won regional awards) and I would rather have some shots taken with a 1980 Leica by a skilled photographer, than shots taken by someone who just wants to have the latest thing, but doesn’t really know what he is looking at</p>
<p>( However- before I die- I want a camera with new Leica lenses and a Hassleblad- Nikons I think are over rated)</p>
<p>I also have seen good results using this website to help you determine what sort of features you need.
<a href=“My Auto Advisor”>My Auto Advisor;
<p>I might forgive you for this some day… It’s easy to tell what is the most reliable small-format camera (35mm in the good old days). Look to see what’s hanging around the necks of professional photogs. In the film days, it would be 95% Nikons, and 5% “other.” When you make your living shooting rolls of film instead of snapshots, it has to work every time and that was always Nikon’s story. Pros don’t care about what’s cool or what looks right, they just need the shot. Not to sound like a gear geek or anything, but I’d put my Nikkor 105mm or 24mm lenses up against anything made in Germany at the same time.</p>
<p>In this Brave New World I don’t know the answer to the “what do the pros use” but I’d bet a nickel a whole bunch of them are Nikons.</p>
<p>I guess I should qualify my statement- I forget that the thought process needs to be explained a little bit.</p>
<p>What I was thinking of was while Nikons have always been of course a very good professional camera- they have expanded their line quite a bit- to include more models to appeal to the casual photographer.
But just as other manufacturers, not only of cameras, have also expanded their lines to appeal to a broader market- I don’t think that the “name” is the only thing that you should look for.
IF you are looking for something with a certain set of features, Nikon, isn’t necessarily the only brand you should consider.</p>
<p>Im also getting a sense of what with the Rolex or whatever it was, the sports car and now the $2000 camera, that laserbrother might get more of the impact he wants if he just staples his bankstatement to his forehead.
Which rubs me the wrong way- I am letting my irritation at hearing someone describe themselves as poor when they spend over $2000 on a watch, show I guess.</p>
<p>Unless you know what you are going to use it for and what to do with it, it doesn’t matter if you have a Norton, or a Nikon or a Nokia.</p>
<p>I am getting inspired to take a photoclass this summer however- & to go back to the used bookstore and snatch up the book of Stieglitz photos</p>
<p>This thread reminds me I desperately want a new camera. We have a very old digital. I use the camera for three things mostly. Picture of concerts - bad lighting and zoom would be useful. Pictures of landscapes that I’ll end up turning into watercolors. Being able to enlarge and a fairly wide angle is useful. And most of all taking pictures of houses - mostly for recording “before” construction conditions. I would like a much wider lens cap than I have currently. I’d also like either no lens cap or one that stays on, and I’d love to have a camera that I don’t constantly have to replace batteries. The product advisor site looks good - though they didn’t answer my lens cap question and didn’t believe me when I said that a wide angle was very important!</p>
<p>Really, there is no such thing as amateur equipment, only people who get the shot right and those who don’t. The absolute best shot I’ve ever taken was a portrait I took with an “amateur level” Nikon N2000, which, frankly, I was carrying because lugging around the “professional” camera bodies gets tiring after a while. A really good camera makes taking good pictures easier, but the correlation between the cost of the camera and the quality of image is very, very low.</p>