Beware...I went a bit overboard and this is loooooong. I needed a distraction tonight to take my mind off other matters, and I'm a bit OCD, generally, and tend to over-analyze stuff like this. You may wish to stop reading when you get to (or even before) the first quote.
For your multi-use (family and family-related activities + concerts), I'd start off with a body that's 2-4 generations back. It'll save money, still provide the basic functionality you need, and allow you to spend more on glass...which you'll appreciate immediately and probably keep even if (when!) you upgrade bodies. (Well, within reason...there are APS-C-specific v. FF compatible lens issues to consider. If you buy APS-C-specific lenses for your APS-C body and then upgrade to a FF body, you'll have to replace all your lenses. Just another reason to buy used, IMO, or FF-compatible lenses).
I'm really only familiar these days with Pentax gear, so I'd go with a used K-100D for ~$300 or K10D for $400 (model line-up includes, in descending order from newest to oldest: K-7, K-20D, K-10D, K-100D...and a couple/few others down the line, as well as some more consumer-ish offshoots scattered throughout the line-up). Or, of course, a similar CaNikon equivalent. The goal: leave plenty of cash for good lenses!
I'd get a fast 35mm, 50mm, or 85mm, somewhere in the f/1.4 to 2.0 range). My 50mm f/1.4 (see below) set me back ~$190 new. Manual focus would have set me back < $100...with similarly excellent image quality (IQ). New prices have gone up recently, unfortunately. Anyway...a fast, quality, and not-too-expensive 35mm or 50mm, regardless of your system brand, will prove useful for low-light concerts and family shots while delivering superb image quality for both.
I'd then get a reasonably good quality or excellent wide to short-tele zoom (say 17-50 or 70). Judgement call as to which, I think. I started with a reasonably good quality Sigma 17-70mm DC Macro f/2.8-4.0 ($300). I think it's an excellent starter lens, as I found the price right, the quality quite nice, and the zoom's focal length hugely useful for landscapes, walkaround, family shots, etc. There are more expensive, higher quality, and similar wide to short-tele zoom lenses out there you may wish to consider (though I don't know many with quite the same combination / spread of focal length). For me, the price/performance increase wasn't significant enough to warrant the extra cash required to upgrade on my first zoom lens. But that may not be the case for you.
As for the rest ($300-400)? Never mind, thought your budget was $1,200 for some reason! Don't forget: you'll need media storage, but cards are relatively cheap, even the fast ones. Maybe purchase an inexpensive hotshoe flash, if you find yourself needing it. Or a gear bag/pack. Or CPL and/or UV filters. Or a Rocket Blower and/or LensPen. Other than that, I'd save any remainder until you decide how you'd like to proceed based on your usage of the above gear. You may wish to switch to all-primes, all-the-time. You may want to replace a reasonably-good 17-70 (or a similar lens you select in its stead) with something better / "faster". You may find yourself longing for longer focal lengths. You may decide you want a lens capable of ultra-wide focal lengths (10-15mm). You may decide you hate your body and want to upgrade. Who knows? But you likely won't know until you use the gear a bunch and get a feel for your shooting scenarios and preferences.
FWIW, the above recommendations are not brand-dependent -- I'd suggest the same general approach regardless of which brand you select.
A suggestion I see often, by Lowell, a fellow Pentaxian on a brand-specific board, and with which I agree for a multi-use lens map: as you build your lens map, think about planning to cover from somewhere in the 20s to 150mm with fixed 2.8 aperture zooms. Extend that to 200mm if you're into wild life, sports, or desire the extra reach for one reason or another. And/Or drop down to low-20s or 20mm f/2.8 if you have a strong desire for wider angle. Then fill in with primes or ultra-wides for special purposes. I've largely ended up this way (see below). Ultimately, I'd like to cover shorter focal lengths at fixed 2.8 (down to about 16mm), but it's not a priority for me right now, and may never be.
And remember: as with recording gear, used photo gear offers better value than new, and tends to hold value quite well.
Finally, one last note before I start rambling even further: I also recommend finding a shop that carries CaNikon, and -- if you're considering it -- Pentax bodies. Try them in the store. Get a sense for how they feel in your hands. Try out the menus and buttons to see if they feel right to you. The Pentax body just felt "right" in my hands, and I preferred the controls / menu...a not-inconsequential input to my decision-making process.
Edit to add:I have been thinking about the Canon EOS Digital Rebel XSi Digital SLR Camera Body, Canon EF-S 18-55mm IS Lens, and Canon EF-S 55-250mm IS Lens package at costco for $925. are these lenses worth a damn?
The problem with kit lenses, usually, is that they're slow. And these fit that mold: the 18-55 is f/3.5-5.6 and the 55-200 is f/4.0-5.6. Granted, they have Image Stablization, which helps, but only if you're shooting a non-moving subject. Image stabilization (IS, Canon, in-lens), vibration reduction (VR, Nikon, in-lens), and shake reduction (SR, Pentax, in-body) become less useful when shooting a moving subject. The way to freeze a moving subject is with higher shutter speed, not IS/VR/SR. And the best way to achieve higher shutter speeds: faster glass. ISO performance helps, but faster glass is better. So, I'd buy the body separately, without the kit lens(es), and add a faster lens (or lenses) through separate purchases (see below).
Also, note the Costco kit lenses are EF-S lenses, which means they'll only work on APS-C sensor bodies. That may or may not matter to you, but it's something of which you should be aware. If you decide to upgrade to a body with full frame sensor, these lenses won't work properly. Probably not a huge deal, you'd just sell / replace them when you sell / replace the APS-C sensor body with a full frame sensor body, but...it's worth considering.
I'd go for a relatively inexpensive and fast 35/50/85mm (f/2.0 or faster) and a reasonably fast ( preferably fixed f/2.8 ) wide to short-tele zoom (say 17-50 or 70). I think you'll find the wider aperture easier for getting shots of the forthcoming wee little one when the light's too dim for the slower kit lenses above.
would it be worthwhile to save on the body and get better glass and upgrade the body later < snip > ?
Yes yes yes! Glass glass glass. Bodies will come and go. Glass, generally speaking, will last a long time. There are APS-C-specific v. FF-compatible lens decisions to make as you build your lens map, but most likely you'll keep and use glass longer term than bodies. Also -- just as with audio recording gear -- behind the source, recording environment, and person operating the gear, good glass is the next most important component in the gear chain (kind of equivalent to mics for audio recording gear). I'm guessing the CaNikon guys would say the same.
Most (if not all) SLR's from Canon and Nikon CAN take amazing pictures
I would add Pentax to that list.
* And no, I'm not interested in getting into a fan-boy brand-war.
so, what did you end up buying, Brian?
I bought a Pentax K-10D + 50mm f/1.4 and a Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.0 to start. Over time, my gear collection has evolved -- just as one might expect -- though I've maintained the same body (for now; I'll eventually upgrade to a K-20D for somewhat better ISO performance, but it's not at all a priority). I currently have:
LOVE the Pentax FA 35mm AL f/2.0 ($225) and FA 50mm f/1.4 ($190) primes. The IQ is simply fantastic, and their large apertures offer low light / shutter speed / depth of field advantages. I don't zoom-with-my-feet as often as I should, but when I do...the results with these primes are simply fantastic.
I use the Tamron SP AF 28-75mm XR Di LD f/2.8 ($270) mainly for active family scenarios. I rarely need to go wide in such situations. The zoom helps for framing mobile kids, and its large-ish f/2.8 aperture helps in less than ideal lighting situations and keeping shutter speeds up. If the lighting really stinks, I'll either break out one of the primes and zoom-with-my-feet or throw on an inexpensive, but decent, hotshoe flash.
The Pentax SMC FA 28-105mm IF AL f/3.2-4.5 ($150) is a quite small, but very nice, walkaround lens.
Much better image quality than one would expect out of a $150 lens. I wish it was a bit wider on the short end and had a larger aperture throughout, but...if I really need/want to go wide, I break out the Sigma 15-30. And if I need wider aperture, I break out one of my other lenses. Basically, it's my favorite walkaround lens for reasonably good light, given it's good IQ in a small, lightweight package. Since it's 1/3 to 1 stop slower in the 28-75 range than the Tamron 28-75, if I had to unload one of my lenses, this would be the one. But I'd sure miss it on walkarounds in decent light.
The Sigma APO 70-200 EX f/2.8 ($670) offers very good image quality at a very reasonable price. From what I've read, the older model (which I have) provides better IQ than the newer DG and/or HSM models. There are plenty of slower, inexpensive consumer-zoom options on the market, and it may be worth trying them out to see if you enjoy shooting longer focal lengths. When I first starting dabbling in longer focal lengths, I started off less expensively with my...
Vivitar Series One 70-210mm f/3.5 v2 ($85), since replaced by a v3, f/2.8-4.0 ($180). Manual focus, but real nice image quality. Honestly, I haven't noticed any difference in IQ between the v2 and v3. (Doh!) Aperture ring allows for aperture adjustment using on-camera controls and simple single-button metering, rather than manually adjusting the aperture ring itself and futzing around with a multi-step metering process. This telezoom is significantly more compact than my Sigma, so if I want telezoom focal lengths but need to go mobile and/or don't want to schlep the fairly beastly Sigma 70-200, I take this along.
The Kenko 1.5x teleconverter (TC) is just okay, not great, and I don't use it very often. Still, I'd like to take advantage of longer focal lengths occasionally, so I'm in the process of trying to track down used and reasonably priced Sigma APO EX 1.4x and 2x TCs. These TCs, in combination with my Sigma APO EX 70-200 f/2.8 will satisfy my longer-focal length needs for the foreseeable future. Unfortunately, I missed the ball on buying new, and prices have sky-rocketed recently...including the used market. I simply don't have the need or desire to spend BIG bucks on significantly longer primes and/or more expensive, large-ish aperture, longer telezooms, hence my focus on TCs.
FWIW, all of my lenses are FF-compatible. This was a quasi-intentional decision -- many of my FF-compatible lenses are faster, cheaper, and/or in many cases provide higher IQ than their new, APS-C-specific counterparts, and it prepares me for the off-chance Pentax eventually produces a FF body...though it appears they're more committed to upgrading their digital medium-format 6xx line before, if ever, switching from APS-C to FF sensors. (Those interested in APS-C v. FF issues may wish to read
Equivalence).
Finally, my K-10D. The K-10D is a bit noisier than the other Pentax bodies at high ISO, but I haven't found it terribly limiting. If I were to buy again today, I'd get a K-20D, as prices are starting to drop since the K-7 was released and it offers somewhat better ISO performance. Both K-10D and K-20D -- like most, but not all -- Pentax dSLRs, have in-body shake reduction. This was a significant selling point for me (in addition to finding Pentax, overall, a better price/performance value). While perhaps not quite as effective as in-lens shake reduction, I have in-body shake reduction on -all- my lenses and I'm not paying for the feature over and over again with each lens. To be fair, shake reduction -- whether in-body or in-lens -- really only becomes critically helpful (though not a panacea) at longer focal lengths, but I find it a nice-to-have even on shorter focal lengths, e.g. in low light.
1 You should know that Pentax lags a bit behind CaNikon in a number of areas -- some you may find important, some not. Only you can decide if you find these areas critical (obviously for me they were not):
- new lens map diversity (though every Pentax K-mount lens ever made still works on all of Pentax's bodies -- some better than others, some with adapters, but they all work -- and despite what some might suggest, I believe there are reasonably high quality / value off-brand lenses available; of course, there are plenty of stinkers, too, but that's the case with on-brand lenses, too; given the broad Pentax lens universe, plus off-brand options, limited new lens map diversity is not a concern for me)
- frames-per-second (not an issue for me)
- video features (BFD, I couldn't care less)
- latest and greatest high performance bodies targeted for professionals (again, doesn't really impact me)
- the N-segment metering and AF race (not really an issue for me...my K-10D 11-point metering and AF work just fine for my purposes, though the K-7 supposedly improves Pentax's metering and AF significantly)
- the megapixel race (doesn't affect me, as I don't produce REALLY BIG hardcopy prints)
- low-light AF (it seems CaNikon offers better performance on this issue, but in my shooting I don't find myself missing shots as a result of additional hunt & seek, except on rare occasions)
- full frame v. APS-C sensor (doesn't bother me in the least; again, those interested in APS-C v. FF issues may wish to read Equivalence)
- and some say ISO performance (but I don't buy it...IMO Pentax simply takes a different approach: their bodies perform very little in-camera noise reduction, which preserves detail, while CaNikon both employ significantly more in-camera noise reduction at the expense of detail -- personally, I'd rather have very little noise reduction done in-camera since I feel I have better control in post-processing)
Okay, bottom line for me...I view Pentax as a very high value proposition: very good performance at a very reasonable price. Do they consistenly rank high, along with CaNikons, in the spec-wars (e.g. MP, N-segment metering, etc.)...no. But remember: a dSLR package is simply a tool. Most dSLRs with reasonably well selected on- or off-brand lenses will take excellent pictures. IF, of course, the person behind the viewfinder is capable of doing so. Frankly, my personal skills represent my biggest challenge in achieving quality photos, not any of the "limitations" of my Pentax gear.
Phew! Anyway...best of luck in your decision, and let us all know what you decide. :)
Edit to add: Attached zipped lens map XLS in case anyone wants to re-purpose for their own lens collection.
Topic: where to start with dSLR purchase? (Read 5940 times)