Camera lens for taking really good MACRO shots?

[Homercidal]

As expected, after our convention my wife stated that she would like to pursue buying a different camera for next year. I subtly hinted that she should look into upgrading our lenses instead, as I thought it would make the biggest difference in her shots. She was trying to get some close-up shots of the stage from the crowd with a 300mm lens that doesn't let in much light. As you can imagine that's hard to do without a tripod and when the subject is constantly moving around.

Of course I know that a newer camera would have better Resolution and who knows what all features, but I feel as though upgrading the camera will still mean she needs a bigger zoom lens if she wants enough light to get clear pics at that distance.

Our camera is a Nikon D50. She had a chance to look at a Canon at the convention. And I see a local ad for a Nikon D700 which is twice the pixels and probably much newer. And our lenses would fit. $600.

I'm torn, because while I appreciate her interest in photography, she didn't practice any of these types of shots before the convention, mostly shooting macros on her phone, and I'm afraid getting the equipment to take these shots is going to cost a small fortune. And she'll be spending that money to get a few shots on a weekend once a year...

If she actually practiced more of this kind of thing, or appeared to be interested in portrait, candid, landscpae, etc. I'd be totally down for an upgrade.

She's mentioned renting lenses, but I don't think she even looked into the possibility before this event. Would that be a more reasonable approach considering the amount of time she would would actually need this kind of lens? Would we be better off just renting for the weekend?

Maybe simply sell our current camera and lenses, and upgrade wholesale? Will we have to spend $1000 to get a 300mm zoom with enough light to take good stage pics?

 

[balrog]

Had same exact issue. Got a Canon Xsi (450d) years ago, keep thinking of moving up. Had issues with long shot, dark venues, graduations, voice recitals. Got the $250 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS Telephoto Zoom Lens, but 5.6 and the older sensor's max ISO just weren't enough. Newer sensors have 4x+ the ISO range so I'd not be trying to take 1/8s photos, but I don't really do those dark light shots much with the kids grown.

In short, think about newer, higher ISO sensor cam with same lenses maybe. While you're finishing grinding the mirror that is.

 

[passedpawn]

Good luck with that. What you're looking for is the same gear sports photographers use: long fast lenses. They are $$$. Nature photographers can get away with lesser lenses because they normally have tons of light, a tripod, and can expect their subject to stop moving for a while. Sports photogs usually don't have any of that and need those giant lenses you see around the ball fields.

You could spend $10,000 for the ideal fixed focal length telephoto. I don't know what $1000 would buy you to help with the stage pics, but it's possible you'd be disappointed. Renting lenses is a pretty cool idea (I've never done that).

Regarding the body, I don't think that is a good place to spend your money. The more expensive bodies (Canon 6D!) have advantages, but your problems are with the lens.

Have you tried increasing the ISO level of the camera? Pictures will get grainier, but it'll help a lot in just getting the picture. You might be able to just put the camera in sports mode and it'll probably increase that ISO for you. On my canon, I have several custom setups, and on one of them I set the ISO limit really high.

 

[balrog]

+1. I had to max the ISO and set exposure to shoot -1 or -2 recommended and the grain was deplorable but pics were good enough for grandparents. To me, used to doing B&W with 2-1/4" format darkroom work eons ago, the grain was quite..icky.

 

[Rehlgood]

As expected, after our convention my wife stated that she would like to pursue buying a different camera for next year. I subtly hinted that she should look into upgrading our lenses instead, as I thought it would make the biggest difference in her shots. She was trying to get some close-up shots of the stage from the crowd with a 300mm lens that doesn't let in much light. As you can imagine that's hard to do without a tripod and when the subject is constantly moving around.

Of course I know that a newer camera would have better Resolution and who knows what all features, but I feel as though upgrading the camera will still mean she needs a bigger zoom lens if she wants enough light to get clear pics at that distance.

Our camera is a Nikon D50. She had a chance to look at a Canon at the convention. And I see a local ad for a Nikon D700 which is twice the pixels and probably much newer. And our lenses would fit. $600.

I'm torn, because while I appreciate her interest in photography, she didn't practice any of these types of shots before the convention, mostly shooting macros on her phone, and I'm afraid getting the equipment to take these shots is going to cost a small fortune. And she'll be spending that money to get a few shots on a weekend once a year...

If she actually practiced more of this kind of thing, or appeared to be interested in portrait, candid, landscpae, etc. I'd be totally down for an upgrade.

She's mentioned renting lenses, but I don't think she even looked into the possibility before this event. Would that be a more reasonable approach considering the amount of time she would would actually need this kind of lens? Would we be better off just renting for the weekend?

Maybe simply sell our current camera and lenses, and upgrade wholesale? Will we have to spend $1000 to get a 300mm zoom with enough light to take good stage pics?

I have the D700 and it will make a huge difference vs the D50 (I moved up from a D80). The ISO range and resolution improvements warrant the extra money and will certainly be cheaper than buying better glass initially. It's a plus to be able to use your existing glass on the new body. One point to note is that the D50 is a DC format (cropped frame) and the D700 is an FX (full frame). The lenses will also have the DX/FX designation. They are interchangeable, but a DX body will crop an FX lens to a small ratio. A DX lens on an FX body remains the same.

 

[passedpawn]

Homer, see if you can borrow a better Nikon body from somebody and use your current lens. Loads of people around with expensive bodies and kit lens, set on Auto mode fulltime I'll bet one of your coworkers or a neighbor would let you borrow one for a day. A quick test like that would give you the answers you're looking for.

 

[Homercidal]

I have the D700 and it will make a huge difference vs the D50 (I moved up from a D80). The ISO range and resolution improvements warrant the extra money and will certainly be cheaper than buying better glass initially. It's a plus to be able to use your existing glass on the new body. One point to note is that the D50 is a DC format (cropped frame) and the D700 is an FX (full frame). The lenses will also have the DX/FX designation. They are interchangeable, but a DX body will crop an FX lens to a small ratio. A DX lens on an FX body remains the same.

After a bit of reading up on it, I think a camera upgrade is probably not a bad idea. The Resolution on the camera is only 6MP. I had thought it was 10.

And the newer camera will likely have better options for ISO as well. Our current D50 is a DX sensor. Not sure how our lenses will match up with a different type. Need more reading. I'm comparing the D700 with the D7000 just to see what's what with the sensor and lens types.

I looked up some rental prices, and I think it's a viable option for a Convention Weekend when compared to purchasing a lens outright and hardly ever using it.

If we can upgrade the camera for a few hundred and get higher resolution and better pictures straight off with our lenses, then we have a half a year to find out if renting a lens will be necessary for next year's convention.

She also wants to get a prime lens for portraits. That's not a bad deal considering if she gets it she will probably not have to pay to have someone take senior pictures (Provided she feels comfortable after practicing some...)

 

[IslandLizard]

Zoom lenses are notoriously low aperture by at least 1 stop, usually 2 or more (20x zoom lenses, ugh!), compared to prime lenses, which are always better for low light conditions. Now sport photographers need to freeze action, hence the higher shutter speeds and thus large apertures needed.

Now instead of using a 300, 400, or 600mm f/2.8 lens, on a tripod or at least a monopod, can't she get closer to her subject?
That would be the easier and cheaper way.

For portraits a 100mm f/2.0 lens is great, but I often used a 135mm f/2.0, wide open, especially for model close-ups. Sometimes longer... it has all to do with viewpoint/perspective, the distance to your subject.

 

[Homercidal]

Zoom lenses are notoriously low aperture by at least 1 stop, usually 2 or more (20x zoom lenses, ugh!), compared to prime lenses, which are always better for low light conditions. Now sport photographers need to freeze action, hence the higher shutter speeds and thus large apertures needed.

Now instead of using a 300, 400, or 600mm f/2.8 lens, on a tripod or at least a monopod, can't she get closer to her subject?
That would be the easier and cheaper way.

For portraits a 100mm f/2.0 lens is great, but I often used a 135mm f/2.0, wide open, especially for model close-ups. Sometimes longer... it has all to do with viewpoint/perspective, the distance to your subject.

Imagine a whole lot of chairs set up in a ballroom with a stage. Imagine the chairs in the back portion of the seating area are expensive. The chairs in front of them are REALLY expensive. The chairs in front of those are insanely expensive. Ideally she would be sitting in the insanely expensive chairs and might still need a 300mm zoom to get the close-ups she wants.

Luckily we have managed to purchase expensive tickets and be seated *near* the insanely expensive ticket seats, so they aren't too bad for that range as far as price goes. I was actually very surprised to find they were the "copper" level tickets and we sat in row E.

I'm not sure she needs sports photographer level lenses. Most of the time there is enough spotlight on the stage to help, but not quite enough light to make a clear shot possible unless Jensen Ackles is acting like a statue. We actually got a few decent shots, but they were the uncommon exception.

I'll be honest and state that I haven't really spent a lot of time playing with the settings on the camera to remember what it's capabilities are. I can't even remember what the aperture of the zoom lens is off the top of my head. I know there are better lenses out there, though. I'd like a lens that requires it's own tripod, but I'm honest enough with myself to know that I'd probably not use it enough to validate the purchase.

I want to encourage her hobby, because I think she's having fun and she needs something more active than sitting at the computer editing images and posting on tumblr. I just want to make a smart decision. Lord knows I spend enough on homebrewing and craft beer.

 

[Homercidal]

I have the D700 and it will make a huge difference vs the D50 (I moved up from a D80). The ISO range and resolution improvements warrant the extra money and will certainly be cheaper than buying better glass initially. It's a plus to be able to use your existing glass on the new body. One point to note is that the D50 is a DC format (cropped frame) and the D700 is an FX (full frame). The lenses will also have the DX/FX designation. They are interchangeable, but a DX body will crop an FX lens to a small ratio. A DX lens on an FX body remains the same.

If I were to compare a D700 to a D7000, which make more sense to you. Either one would be an upgrade. Haven't looked into other models yet. I was checking these because someone local had a D7000 advertised as a D700. (Luckily I noticed the model number on the camera and posted on the ad to make sure others didn't assume they were getting the D700 based on the posted description...)

 

[passedpawn]

A DX lens on an FX body remains the same.

A DX lens probably will not cover the entire FX full frame sensor. For this reason, the FX camera will automagically crop the image when it senses a DX lens attached. Thus, only a fraction of the frame is used, making the full frame useless.

Some DX lenses actually cover the entire full FX frame, oddly, or so I've read, so it's worth turning off the DX Crop feature (check the camera menu), take a picture, and see how your DX lens behave.

 

[Homercidal]

Turns out a good friend of hers purchased a D3300 last year, so there is a high probability of my wife getting to check it out with our lenses. Both are DX sensors, and all of the cameras I've just looked at are DX sensors cameras, and they are all in about our price range, so that's good.

I told her if we are thinking about buying the D3300, we may as well spend a bit more and get the D3400 instead. So it's a toss-up between the d3400 and the D5500, another similar model she's looking at. The D5500 has an articulating view screen, so it may be helpful in some shooting situations like shooting above your head, or around a corner.

I'm kind of happy were are shopping, because I think I have an excellent Birthday present idea now!

Got to find out how much we can expect to get for our old D50...

 

[CU_tony]

It really sounds like you have a light problem not a camera body issue per-se.
You can have all the pixels and ISO in the world, but without light entering the lens you are fighting a losing battle.
For ballroom/event photography there is a reason to use a professional and that's because they have invested in the expensive tools to be proficient at it.
I don't mean to be a downer but I don't think a better body with higher ISO will give you the shots you are looking for, will it be better? Sure, but it won't be professional quality if you are using that 300mm zoom with a 4.5 aperture.
For a once a year shoot I would try to get some remote strobes near the stage which if you are paying for a ticket isn't likely.
I would then resort to renting a lens as nothing is better than having the right tool and you may be able to find a proper lens for only a few hundred a day.

 

[jspain3]

If I were to compare a D700 to a D7000, which make more sense to you. Either one would be an upgrade. Haven't looked into other models yet. I was checking these because someone local had a D7000 advertised as a D700. (Luckily I noticed the model number on the camera and posted on the ad to make sure others didn't assume they were getting the D700 based on the posted description...)

The D700 is FX. With FX lenses, this should produce superior photos to the D7000 and it's smaller sensor IIRC. However, FX is generally more expensive than DX and for non-photography folks, the difference in photo quality is probably negligible.

FWIW, I own the D7000 and it completely suits my needs, but I just take photos of my kids and my wife uses it for her food blog. If I took photos professionally, I would totally spring for the D700 and go full frame.

 

[Homercidal]

It really sounds like you have a light problem not a camera body issue per-se.
You can have all the pixels and ISO in the world, but without light entering the lens you are fighting a losing battle.
For ballroom/event photography there is a reason to use a professional and that's because they have invested in the expensive tools to be proficient at it.
I don't mean to be a downer but I don't think a better body with higher ISO will give you the shots you are looking for, will it be better? Sure, but it won't be professional quality if you are using that 300mm zoom with a 4.5 aperture.
For a once a year shoot I would try to get some remote strobes near the stage which if you are paying for a ticket isn't likely.
I would then resort to renting a lens as nothing is better than having the right tool and you may be able to find a proper lens for only a few hundred a day.

Yeah, remote strobes are not an option. I'm frankly surprised they let people in with long lenses to begin with.

As it is, I think we're on the edge of getting what she wants. If she is serious about learning photography, then upgrading the camera we paid $250 for 6 years ago is not a bad option. I think renting a better long lens is an option, but a REAL good lens is probably outside our price range even then. We'll see.

She's excited, so I'm happy. Even though these are decent entry-level cameras, they are way better then what we have, and I have to believe that they are way more advanced than what we have, and what we had before that (Although, I have to say the Sony Mavica camera we had back in the day took some VERY nice photos for a 2MP camera! And the D5500 seems to have a Sony sensor.)

 

[Xernex]

I'll jump back in to sing the praises of the D700 - I absolutely ADORED mine, only got rid of it to help cover some of the cost of my wife's engagement ring...love will make you do strange things. Probably the best low-light shooting camera I've ever had - granted I haven't tried any of the newer bodies yet; but I think the D700 at higher ISO may help a little.

I'm a huge proponent of rental lenses.. I've rented everything imaginable before deciding what glass I wanted. Sometimes it can be pricey, but some places (try and buy lenses) seemed a bit cheaper back when I was doing it. Honestly I'd say a good 70-200mm f2.8 might would be a great place to look lens wise for the type of shots at the conventions, between that and something with good high-iso quality you'd probably be safe. Granted I know the Nikkor 70-200 is really pricey, I picked up a used sigma one for around 500 bucks years ago. Auto-focus was noticeably slower than the nikon, and useless in the Rodeo's I shot at the time, but for something less action/movement based, it was butter.

 

[IslandLizard]

Imagine a whole lot of chairs set up in a ballroom with a stage. Imagine the chairs in the back portion of the seating area are expensive. The chairs in front of them are REALLY expensive. The chairs in front of those are insanely expensive. Ideally she would be sitting in the insanely expensive chairs and might still need a 300mm zoom to get the close-ups she wants.

Luckily we have managed to purchase expensive tickets and be seated *near* the insanely expensive ticket seats, so they aren't too bad for that range as far as price goes. I was actually very surprised to find they were the "copper" level tickets and we sat in row E.

I'm not sure she needs sports photographer level lenses. Most of the time there is enough spotlight on the stage to help, but not quite enough light to make a clear shot possible unless Jensen Ackles is acting like a statue. We actually got a few decent shots, but they were the uncommon exception.

I'll be honest and state that I haven't really spent a lot of time playing with the settings on the camera to remember what it's capabilities are. I can't even remember what the aperture of the zoom lens is off the top of my head. I know there are better lenses out there, though. I'd like a lens that requires it's own tripod, but I'm honest enough with myself to know that I'd probably not use it enough to validate the purchase.

I want to encourage her hobby, because I think she's having fun and she needs something more active than sitting at the computer editing images and posting on tumblr. I just want to make a smart decision. Lord knows I spend enough on homebrewing and craft beer.

I understand your shooting venue much better now.

When lenses get larger and heavier, the manufacturer integrates a tripod/monopod collar, to be used instead of the camera's tripod mount, for 2 reasons. One to prevent breaking or damaging things, like the lens mount system and/or the camera's tripod mount, and secondly to provide a much better balance point. Usually those lenses are in the more expensive side of the catalog.

A 300mm f/4.0 prime lens can be very useful without breaking the bank. When used on a tripod or monopod and the sensor speed set to 1600 ISO it should yield very good images even in lower light, at shutter speeds down to 1/30" or even 1/15". This is for photographing non-fast moving subjects.

Boosting beyond 3200+ ISO will yield noisier less colorful images, but still better than none.

If possible, shoot raw (plus a jpg) so you can make better and more extensive corrections later, while still having a jpg for quick share.

The 300mm f/2.8 and thereabouts lenses have become more available in the enthusiasts' budget range, but are still considered pro lenses and are more expensive. Some lens only brands (e.g., Tamron) used to be as good or even better as the camera manufacturers' own at half to 2/3 of the price.

A lens with image stabilization can also help, but with extra cost and some image quality/speed tradeoff.

 

[Rehlgood]

A DX lens probably will not cover the entire FX full frame sensor. For this reason, the FX camera will automagically crop the image when it senses a DX lens attached. Thus, only a fraction of the frame is used, making the full frame useless.

Some DX lenses actually cover the entire full FX frame, oddly, or so I've read, so it's worth turning off the DX Crop feature (check the camera menu), take a picture, and see how your DX lens behave.

No they will not. They will still operate in the DX format, but are compatible with an FX body.

 

[Rehlgood]

If I were to compare a D700 to a D7000, which make more sense to you. Either one would be an upgrade. Haven't looked into other models yet. I was checking these because someone local had a D7000 advertised as a D700. (Luckily I noticed the model number on the camera and posted on the ad to make sure others didn't assume they were getting the D700 based on the posted description...)

You can move up into an FX body do it. The D7000 is still a DX. I think my ISO goes up to 6400 before H1, H2, and H3. It can get a little grainy that high but I rarely go that high.

I have a 50mm prime with a 1.4f for portraits and walking around. It is an amazing lens.

 

[Photopilot]

A newer camera will have better low light resolution. An Image Stabilized lens will allow you to shoot handheld 2 or more stops slower speed.

Adding a monopod will allow you to shot at even a slower speed.

You can also go to rent a lens companies and for about $150 you can rent any lens you can dream about. I did this before buying a 10-20mm lens. I also rented the Canon 100-400 IS II more recently. I would have bought it also if it were not $2000.

A newer high end camera with a Prosumer grade 75-300mm lens will probably probably get you decent shots. Read dpreview.com to find out which 3rd party lenses get good reviews in this range. Look at Tamron, Sigma, Tokina. I would upgrade the lens first then look at a higher end camera body.

Another option is to buy a used camera. Sell your whole setup and buy someone else's used camera. Photography is a bit like brewing people get into it invest a lot of money then loose interest, except camera gear does not hold its value as well as obsolescence is a much slower process in brewing.

 

[passedpawn]

You can move up into an FX body do it. The D7000 is still a DX. I think my ISO goes up to 6400 before H1, H2, and H3. It can get a little grainy that high but I rarely go that high.

I have a 50mm prime with a 1.4f for portraits and walking around. It is an amazing lens.

I used to have a Sigma 50mm prime f/1.4. That's a GREAT lens for indoor shooting. Holy cow. Never needed a flash with that.

I've got a Canon f/1.8 now, it's still fast, but man 1.4 is where it's AT

 

[shelly_belly]

My wife is wanting something with a good zoom lens and it seems the majority of the pictures she takes are indoors or nightime outside under artificial lighting. I don't think she's nerdy enough to appreciate a DSLR and multiple lenses. I think I'm going to get her a Panasonic Lumix FZ200 that comes paired to a 25-600mm f/2.8 Leica lens. And that's f/2.8 across the whole focal length of the lens! Also, it's an older camera so it's currently 1/2 of it's original $600 price.

 

[Homercidal]

She's asking if we should buy a body-only camera and keep our kit lens, or buy a new camera with the kit lens. It seems to be about $100 more to go that way.

Is a new kit lens really worth $100 difference??

I'd consider selling the kit lens with our old camera and buying the f-1.4 or whatever that she wants. I could probably get by with that and the 300mm telephoto for our needs.

 

[Xernex]

What kit are you looking at out of curiosity - some of the kit lenses are junk, yet some are surprisingly useful.

 

[Homercidal]

What kit are you looking at out of curiosity - some of the kit lenses are junk, yet some are surprisingly useful.

We're looking at the D5500 with the basic lens. I don't know the specs on our current lens, but it's very likely the kit lens that came with the D50 years ago.

Also need to know if there is any compatibility issues with using our old kit lens on the new body.

She seems to be in favor of selling the camera and lens and getting the kit instead of body-only. I guess it's a toss-up for me. That way would make our old camera at least a little valuable.

Oh, and she really likes the RED body model...

EDIT: Meant to say I think they are both 18-55mm lenses...

 

[Xernex]

I'd wager that both lenses will perform almost identically - if the new one with the kit is VR that'd be a nice upgrade, and it may auto-focus a fair amount quicker, image quality from the glass itself will probably be about the same - Fairly sure that you'd have 0 compatibility issues, Nikon has been very nice in not changing much on the mounts over the years.

 

[ajdelange]

An FX lens is designed to cover 36 mm (the longer dimension of a 24 x 36 mm frame). A DX lens is designed to cover the smaller DX sensor. Thus you can use an FX lens on a full frame or reduced frame camera and be insured of adequate performance on either. If, OTOH, you use a DX lens on a full frame camera you will only get advertised MTF in the DX sized part of the frame and quite probably noticeable dimming of the image outside that area and probably more chromatic abberation. The smaller coverage area obviously simplifies lens design and this means that the DX lenses can be sold at consumer prices and the engineers aren't going to expend resources in optimizing lens performance for full frame coverage when trying to sell a consumer product.

I believe the full frame cameras will detect a DX lens and produce an image off the central DX portion of a full frame sensor. I did not know that this could be disabled but if it can don't expect the outer parts of the image to be too good.

Now in today's world we have software that will remove the vignetting and some lenses (computer lenses) store their chromatic aberration error data so software can take this out too.

Anyway, if one is not certain that he will never shoot full frame (and there is the DOF issue to think of in this regard) the obvious answer is to buy FX lenses as they cover etiher. If you never go to FX you have, of course, wasted money on capability you don't need but, OTOH, of you have a drawer full of DX lenses and do decide to go to FX you'll have to get new lenses anyway.

I've never bought a DX lens for these reasons and probably never will but then most of my lenses were bought when FX meant a piece of film.

 

[Homercidal]

I'd wager that both lenses will perform almost identically - if the new one with the kit is VR that'd be a nice upgrade, and it may auto-focus a fair amount quicker, image quality from the glass itself will probably be about the same - Fairly sure that you'd have 0 compatibility issues, Nikon has been very nice in not changing much on the mounts over the years.

AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR II

According to the Nikon website. I just realized the VR probably means Vibration Reduction. So that would definitely be a nice upgrade for her. She's historically been unable to hold very still when taking pictures!

 

[CU_tony]

The VR is a nice feature, it more or less let's you shoot a stop or two smaller without a tripod... sorta. It works well while tracking a moving subject or if you are moving.

If your wife always has camera shake issues it might be better to research proper holding techniques to make sure that she is providing the best shooting scenario.

 

[Homercidal]

The VR is a nice feature, it more or less let's you shoot a stop or two smaller without a tripod... sorta. It works well while tracking a moving subject or if you are moving.

If your wife always has camera shake issues it might be better to research proper holding techniques to make sure that she is providing the best shooting scenario.

I think all she really needs is to remember to hold still when pushing the shutter. She's had problems since forever, even with cell phones and small cameras.

Only recently has her newer phones helped her out. I think she is quite capable of holding still if she practices.

She's getting excited. Looks like we are selling the old camera and kit lens and getting a new D550 with the newer kit lens and then looking for a decent f1.4 or f1.8 prime lens for serious shots.

Our luck they will ban long lenses at the convention next year after we upgrade...

 

[Xernex]

forgot to mention if you haven't already check keh.com for used lenses/bodies if you're not dead set on something brand spanking new.

 

[ajdelange]

I always think in terms of the way I was taught to shoot a rifle. Deep breath, let 2/3 out and squeeze.

 

[Homercidal]

forgot to mention if you haven't already check keh.com for used lenses/bodies if you're not dead set on something brand spanking new.

We are actually looking at factory refurbs from a trusted reseller. Can save about $150, which could go towards a decent Prime lens.

I always think in terms of the way I was taught to shoot a rifle. Deep breath, let 2/3 out and squeeze.

Yes, but I don't think she's ever shot a rifle. One time her old boyfriend had her shoot his handgun and she never particularly enjoyed shooting. I think she'll do fine once she starts taking portraits and candids and gets some practice. But a VR lens can't hurt most shots.

 

[passedpawn]

I always think in terms of the way I was taught to shoot a rifle. Deep breath, let 2/3 out and squeeze.

You forgot about trigger discipline The squeezing part requires just as much care.

 

[Homercidal]

You forgot about trigger discipline The squeezing part requires just as much care.

She's got her squeeze down just fine.

 

[CU_tony]

http://expertphotography.com/how-to-hold-a-camera/
That has some decent options regarding proper camera control.
Also you might consider beginner photography classes as you can pour all your money into a hobby,but if you don't know how to use your gear or have realistic expectations for it you won't be doing yourself any favors.
Lastly check bhphoto.com for some good used deals
Search Ken Rockwell photography for some good gear reviews and photo insight

 

[Rehlgood]

She's asking if we should buy a body-only camera and keep our kit lens, or buy a new camera with the kit lens. It seems to be about $100 more to go that way.

Is a new kit lens really worth $100 difference??

I'd consider selling the kit lens with our old camera and buying the f-1.4 or whatever that she wants. I could probably get by with that and the 300mm telephoto for our needs.

If you already have kit lenses there is not need to get more of the are compatible with the new camera. Save the money and invest in a nice piece of glass.

 

[Photopilot]

My last response was in regards to the thread midstream where you described the want to photograph people onstage from a distance.

True macro photography is very very complicated for a variety of reasons.

You need a specific lens, usually costing $500+.

The depth of field is usually really small and because the lens and camera is heavy you will need the following:

You need a tripod.

You need a lens mounted flash or light diffuser

You need a wind break to keep the subject from moving if its a flower or something different.



You can get by with out all of these but your wife's success rate will be limited without all of the above and a whole lot of knowledge. Your wife will probably have better success with a cell phone without a lot of investment in time and practice.

 

[Homercidal]

My last response was in regards to the thread midstream where you described the want to photograph people onstage from a distance.

True macro photography is very very complicated for a variety of reasons.

You need a specific lens, usually costing $500+.

The depth of field is usually really small and because the lens and camera is heavy you will need the following:

You need a tripod.

You need a lens mounted flash or light diffuser

You need a wind break to keep the subject from moving if its a flower or something different.



You can get by with out all of these but your wife's success rate will be limited without all of the above and a whole lot of knowledge. Your wife will probably have better success with a cell phone without a lot of investment in time and practice.

All of this is understood. She's been doing pretty good with her phone. I'm more interested in the really close up stuff, but haven't had a chance to rig up a lighting solution, etc. I have extender tubes, but haven't had a chance to try them out.

One solution to the lighting I've seen years back was an LED ring that slips over the lens. It was designed for smaller point-and-shoot cameras, but would work on a DSLR just fine I imagine. My interest would be in designing one with good color.

I'm actually pretty excited for a newer camera. The MP is just too small on this one for the zoom and macro shots we want to take, and a good fast prime lens will be nice for lots of other things.

I tried repairing our tv last night. The PSU circuit board failed out again and I was unable to fix it with new Caps. I told the wife we might have to hold off on her new camera for a while and she made it quite clear we can move the TV from the bedroom to the living room before that happens! (I ended up moving my oldest's TV from the younger daughter's room instead. It wasn't getting much use in either room and I wanted to watch some football last night!)

 

[IslandLizard]

In regards to lens mounted flash/ring/LED lights, yes, they can get you light where needed, but the photographic quality of front-lit subjects is typically poor (no modeling), more so when there's a ring or more than one light source, adding all kinds of weird specular highlights. Best to use available light with modifiers or off-axis flash/LED lights with or without modifiers to control the direction and overall "quality" of light.

Like @Photopilot said, macro photography takes special dedication and equipment.

So does photographing people on stage from a distance. To get close-ups in that scenario is very different from macro/close-up photography, which is the title of this thread. "On stage" photography has it's own set of difficulties, technically and socially, as you want to be as unobtrusive as possible, being virtually invisible.

A prime lens there can give you the advantages of a larger aperture, but if your distance to the subjects is restricted, you are limited to the framing/composition it gives you from that viewpoint. A zoom has much more flexibility on framing and thus composition, alas with a 1-2 stop penalty on aperture, which also limits you from isolating your subject by selective focusing and shallow depth of field at its widest opening. So that's a choice to make.

Regarding kit lenses, I've found most to be mediocre, and of limited use. Better spend money on something in the range and performance qualities YOU want, not the camera manufacturer.

Beginner classes can be helpful if they really teach you camera handling, settings, and typical use. It all depends on the teacher. On the other side, there is tons of information available on the web, which can be more useful, and dedicated to your specific uses.

On a side note, 2 weeks ago I was handling a Canon M (video) camera on a nice portable rig using a beautiful 100mm (or 150mm) f/1.5 prime lens (non-Canon brand). What a dream that was!