<!– /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:”"; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} –>
Im buying my first dslr camera mainly because I need to take some high quality photographs of products (books and cds), architecture and landscapes. However, i’m on a budget. I’ve been looking at cameras lately and i’m unsure whether to get a cheaper camera with an expensive lens or vise versa. The cheaper camera would consist of a Nikon D60 or used D200 with a $1000+ lens. The expensive camera would be a Canon 40D with a slighter better lens to the kit lens. Should I put my money into the camera or the lens?
I have some some high end prime lenses They’re not that much better they my kit lens. The kits lens that come with the cameras are really great. If you don’t trust me just look up lens “reviews” they will compare a 2,000 dollar lens to a 200 dollar one . The 2,000 is no where close to “10 times better” in fact it’s even hard to tell. Only thing that really helps with a high dollar lens is there fast. Allow you to take low light shots.
Seeing you’re not taking any actions or low light pictures. You really don’t need a mid range camera like the 40d.
The reason to buy the mid range cameras like this are for the fast fps and the low noise at high iso. Both that you will not be using.
I would buy a d80/d200 or sony a200-a300 so you can use old prime lens. Then i would buy a couple prime lenses for your landscaping. They are cheap and the look great. No need to buy a 1000 lens when a 75 dollar prime looks like as great.Then i would buy a lighting setup for your products. Lighting is what make products look good not the camera.