0

I want to buy a new camera + lens below $ 1000.

I am new to photography and want to learn . I would like to do , photography of the city , people and sceneries . Some of my work will involve taking pics in low light as well.

After learning the skills of the trade, I slowly want to graduate to wedding photography.

Can you guys recommend me a camera + lens kit .

misguided
  • 115
  • 6

1 Answers1

0

This sort of "equipment recommendation" question is generally not allowed and is liable to be closed.

However, here is some more generic advice which may just slip past the infielders:

The best DSLR for under $1000 is probably the good quality well known brand one that you determine will help you achieve what you want. All the top name brands perform well enough to start with and to learn on, there are some differences and some features that may suit you better, but without a personal "fitting" it is unlikely that anyone here will be able to say with certainty what will work for you. If you have a friend who already owns equipment of a given brand that may make a difference - qas may the existece of a local club that focuses on a given camera brand.

The usual "safe" choices are Canon or Nikon (alphabetical order - either OK) but also very safe are Olympus & Sony and there are a number of entirely adequate other offerings.

No $1000 camera system would be the camera of choice for a professional wedding photographer BUT any wedding photographer worth their $ would be able to take reasonably good wedding photos using such.

If you especially value low light photography you may wish to look at good used lenses that have a reasonably large maximum aperture (f/2.8 or better). All camera makers also offer something like a 50mm f/1.8 prime lens at an utterly bargain basement price in terms of performance per $. Some also do a 35mm f/1.x but these are sometimes more costly enough to eat more of your $1000 budget than you can really afford.

Many entry level DSLRs have kit options with one or two low cost and relatively modest quality lenses. These are usually lower cost when bought this way than if bought separately and the quality is usually good enough to be useful while you are learning.

"Best brand" recommendations usually bring out brand purists and the arguments never cease. I'm going to mention one brand for a special reason - you can decide if it matters enough. I started with a Minolta SRT303b film SLR decades ago due to a friend's recommendation and have used mainly Minolta and then Sony (who bought Minolta's camera business) ever since. [I also have D700 Nikon but that's irrelevant here]. Optically and functionally Sony's DSLR line is similar in performance to Canon or Nikon or Olympus or ... . There is one major difference. All Sony DSLR camera have "in body" antishake to provide image stabilisation. Most other manufacturers provide antishake mechanisms in selected lenses. Lenses with anti-shake cost a premium over lenses without it - in some cases the lenses may cost around double the non-equivalent stabilised lens price. As the Sony cameras have in-body stabilisation ALL lenses are stabilised. You get 2 to 3 stops of improvement by using Sony antishake (always turned on by default). This means that a Sony with only modest low light performance can compete in many cases with a very good low-light performance camera when photos are hand held and when hand stability is a limiting factor. My A77 Sony is 3 times worse noise-wise than my D700 Nikon, but hand held in low light the Sony is often a match for the Nikon (heresy!!!) due to the ability to use lower ISO and lower shutter speed. When subject movement is the limiting factor no camera stabilising scheme helps and the D700 'tramples' the A77 with ease. Whether this matters depends on what is important to you, but I have found that the ability to use ANY Minolta AF lens and have it stabilised as of right is very valuable. [eg The Minolta 500mm mirror lens is the only only 500mm AF stabilised mirror lens ever made]. FWIW - Sony make the sensors for the top Nikons, so much of the differences are in presentation and processing and not raw sensor performance.

Russell McMahon
  • 19,630
  • 1
  • 44
  • 79
  • +1 Really detailed answer. Loved the post . The last paragraph was a bit confusing though , but I'm assuming that is because I'm a rookie photographer and I am not aware of the tech terms used. – misguided Dec 30 '13 at 03:42
  • Hey Russell, take a look at http://meta.photo.stackexchange.com/questions/4174/should-i-vote-up-good-answers-to-questions-that-obviously-should-be-closed. I think it'd be better for this answer to be there instead of here. Especially since you know that the question isn't a good fit by site consensus, and will be closed. – mattdm Dec 30 '13 at 05:05
  • @mattdm - Did you mean that link to be to a technical answer or a meta one? – Russell McMahon Dec 30 '13 at 13:05
  • @RussellMcMahon That link is to a meta discussion asking to please not post answers like this on questions which you know will be closed. The "there" I meant was the What to look for in a DSLR question linked above. Sorry that was ambiguous. – mattdm Dec 30 '13 at 15:26
  • Someone thinks this answer is 'not useful'. Notwithstanding wider context that's a bit of a sad comment on their perceptions. ( – Russell McMahon Dec 31 '13 at 00:02