Help for aspiring 13 year old videographer/photographer

[SniperPenguin]

Hey all,
I'm going to Germany in the next month or two and want to film it. I also want something to do as a hobby over the summer.
I will be building an 8 core PC with an RX 580 for editing the photos and videos.

I'm receiving 500$ for my birthday. Add that to the money I've already saved and the expenses are almost all payed for.

I have chosen the Canon EOS Rebel T7i, the EF-S 18-55mm lens, and the Manfrotto Befree live fluid head tripod.
Is this a good setup? I would like it to last me for the next 3-4 years, and only need to change the lens within that time if needed.

Thanks!

 

[SniperPenguin]

I'll ask questions here when I need to, if that's fine with you.
Am I better off with the 18-55mm lens, or the 50mm f1.8?
And the lens that comes with the kit is 18-55mm, but there's also the lens that doesn't come with the kit and is an extra 300$.
So camera + lens = 1,000$
Or camera with lens kit = 850$

And lastly, what is a good slider for smooth pan shots? I already found a good, affordable fluid head tripod but I don't think the rubber band trick will work too great with the pans. Maybe buying a slider will be a good investment?

 

[rhysiam]

I'll ask questions here when I need to, if that's fine with you.
Am I better off with the 18-55mm lens, or the 50mm f1.8?
And the lens that comes with the kit is 18-55mm, but there's also the lens that doesn't come with the kit and is an extra 300$.
So camera + lens = 1,000$
Or camera with lens kit = 850$

And lastly, what is a good slider for smooth pan shots? I already found a good, affordable fluid head tripod but I don't think the rubber band trick will work too great with the pans. Maybe buying a slider will be a good investment?

What is the $300 lens specifically? It totally depends on what your priorities are.

Lots of people start out with kit lenses and cheap telephotos, which are fine and give you loads of versatility. A 17-55 and 70-300 twin lens kit is pretty standard and convenient. But when you start getting into photography properly you realise how much better your shots look with decent glass and those early investments start to look dubious.

Do you actually save money by ditching the 18-55mm kit lens? If you do, you could consider that, but usually they're bundled and you're not gonna save much going body only. Plus, you probably do want a zoom lens. Getting a group shot can be awkward with a 50mm prime on a cropped body, that's not wide enough for lots of situations.

I'm happy to make a specific recommendation, but need to know what the $300 lens is.

**edit - can't help you with the smooth pan. Haven't done that sort of videography myself. I'd be interested to hear what you settle on and how it works though.

 

[SniperPenguin]

I'll ask questions here when I need to, if that's fine with you.
Am I better off with the 18-55mm lens, or the 50mm f1.8?
And the lens that comes with the kit is 18-55mm, but there's also the lens that doesn't come with the kit and is an extra 300$.
So camera + lens = 1,000$
Or camera with lens kit = 850$

And lastly, what is a good slider for smooth pan shots? I already found a good, affordable fluid head tripod but I don't think the rubber band trick will work too great with the pans. Maybe buying a slider will be a good investment?

What is the $300 lens specifically? It totally depends on what your priorities are.

Lots of people start out with kit lenses and cheap telephotos, which are fine and give you loads of versatility. A 17-55 and 70-300 twin lens kit is pretty standard and convenient. But when you start getting into photography properly you realise how much better your shots look with decent glass and those early investments start to look dubious.

Do you actually save money by ditching the 18-55mm kit lens? If you do, you could consider that, but usually they're bundled and you're not gonna save much going body only. Plus, you probably do want a zoom lens. Getting a group shot can be awkward with a 50mm prime on a cropped body, that's not wide enough for lots of situations.

I'm happy to make a specific recommendation, but need to know what the $300 lens is.

**edit - can't help you with the smooth pan. Haven't done that sort of videography myself. I'd be interested to hear what you settle on and how it works though.

https/www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1318772-REG/canon_1894c003_eos_rebel_t7i_dslr.html

Here it is with the 18-135mm : https/www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1318772-REG/canon_1894c003_eos_rebel_t7i_dslr.html
And here is this: https/www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/details/lenses/ef/standard-zoom/ef-s-18-135mm-f-3-5-5-6-is-usm

So quite a bit more. I reckon that the one bundled with the camera does not have the fancy motor?

 

[USAFRet]

I thought you were going with the existing Nikon?

 

[SniperPenguin]

I thought you were going with the existing Nikon?

I was, but then I decided it would be better to go for a new camera because I don't have the greatest lenses for my Nikon.

But you're right anyways. I'll try the Nikon, see if I like photography THAT MUCH, save some money for my PC.

But I'm still confused on the question I asked.
Thanks

 

[USAFRet]

You have a little time before the vacation.
Go out this weekend and take a couple hundred pics with the Nikon.

See what happens.

 

[SniperPenguin]

Thanks,
That's what I'll do.
But if it does turn out to be unsatisfactory, could you recommend a good lense for me? I think the 18-135 is a good all rounder.

 

[USAFRet]

Thanks,
That's what I'll do.
But if it does turn out to be unsatisfactory, could you recommend a good lense for me? I think the 18-135 is a good all rounder.

A fast prime lens rather than a zoom.

 

[rhysiam]

Thanks,
That's what I'll do.
But if it does turn out to be unsatisfactory, could you recommend a good lense for me? I think the 18-135 is a good all rounder.

Great suggestion to spend some time with the Nikon and make an educated decision.

RE lens, it really depends what you prioritise. The 18-135mm is great for a kit lens, it's not too heavy, it's super versatile (wide angle to respectable telephoto) and the STM focusing system makes it very handy for your video work.
It's a fantastic travel lens -> versatile and portable.
It's not a great photographer lens -> it's slow and image quality is not the best (really good for a kit lens, but compared to something like a 50mm prime, you will be able to tell the difference).

So do you want a lens you can leave on and get nice, usable travel shots in a variety of situations... i.e. do you want to capture memories of your trip with minimal fuss -> get the 18-135
OR, are you less interested in travel pics and more interested in learning photography... i.e. do you want artistic/interesting photos from your trip, but prepared to accept that in some situations the lack of zoom on a prime means you won't be able to capture the shots you want without moving around, or perhaps even can't get those shots at all. If that's what you'd prefer, get a 50mm prime.

Ideally you'd have both, and given the nifty fifty is so light, it hardly makes a difference to your camera bag. In fact, if you're prepared to source the lenses separately, you could actually get the body only from B&H, as well as an 18-135mm and 50mm f1.8 STM for the same price as the body + 18-135 kit. You need to make sure you buy lenses from a reputable source, because not all lenses of the same range are created equal and there are dodgy versions floating around. But if you're careful you should be able to pick up those two for around the $350 extra B&H is asking just for the 18-135.

Just to reiterate again - there's really nothing wrong with the Nikon you have. So don't feel like you need the new camera. I'm only offering this if you do decide to upgrade before you go.
Like I said before, your i7 4790K is still a fantastic CPU, so I wouldn't suggest a PC upgrade at all. But obviously you decide what your priorities are.

 

[SniperPenguin]

Wait, so you guys are saying the 110$ lens has better picture quality than a 500$ zoom lens?
That's perfect for me. I already have a 2013 Sony Cybershot and does zoom pretty well for me. This camera is really meant for closer pictures.
But that information right there is really helpful. Thanks
And yes, I'm definetly going to try the Nikon first.
Thanks, again

 

[rhysiam]

Wait, so you guys are saying the 110$ lens has better picture quality than a 500$ zoom lens?
That's perfect for me. I already have a 2013 Sony Cybershot and does zoom pretty well for me. This camera is really meant for closer pictures.
But that information right there is really helpful. Thanks
And yes, I'm definetly going to try the Nikon first.
Thanks, again

Yes absolutely. Constructing a zoom lens is vastly more complicated and requires all sorts of compromises. That's what allows prime lenses to offer such incredible image quality for your dollar. Canon has made those nifty fifties with very good optics, producing fantastic photos, but bundled it in basically the cheapest possible housing to keep the price as low as possible. I think they do it strategically because people (like me) buy one, realise the difference between kit and quality lenses, and then start spending stupid money on expensive zoom lenses.

 

[SniperPenguin]

Nice! Should I get the one for 110$, or the one for 330$ that has the USM feature?

EDIT: That is, if I don't like the Nikon.

 

[rhysiam]

Nice! Should I get the one for 110$, or the one for 330$ that has the USM feature?

You mean the 50mm f1.4 USM? I wouldn't bother. It's a much better constructed lens, not the cheap/plastic of the f1.8, but optically there's not a big difference and the depth of field down to f1.4 is pretty hard to use effectively. It's also larger and heavier (because of the better build quality).

It's a better lens, I don't think it's worth 3 times as much.

 

[SniperPenguin]

Nice! Should I get the one for 110$, or the one for 330$ that has the USM feature?

You mean the 50mm f1.4 USM? I wouldn't bother. It's a much better constructed lens, not the cheap/plastic of the f1.8, but optically there's not a big difference and the depth of field down to f1.4 is pretty hard to use effectively. It's also larger and heavier (because of the better build quality).

It's a better lens, I don't think it's worth 3 times as much.

Thanks!
The extra light it can use might be beneficial, but I'll go ahead and save the money.

Tomorrow I'll take the Nikon for a test run. I'll see if it's even better than my 2013 Sony Cybershot Zoom..

 

[rhysiam]

The extra light it can use might be beneficial, but I'll go ahead and save the money.

The depth of field at f1.4 is so tiny it's not often you can actually use it fully open. It's so narrow that you can focus on someone's eye but their nose and ears will be out of focus, or if they're not facing the camera you can't actually get both eyes in focus. I'm sure there are some artistic shots where the smaller depth of field is a benefit, but that's a big price to pay.

Have fun with the Nikon. I think you'll appreciate the speed of a real SLR over that Sony, though the Sony does look like a very capable camera too.

 

[SniperPenguin]

The extra light it can use might be beneficial, but I'll go ahead and save the money.

The depth of field at f1.4 is so tiny it's not often you can actually use it fully open. It's so narrow that you can focus on someone's eye but their nose and ears will be out of focus, or if they're not facing the camera you can't actually get both eyes in focus. I'm sure there are some artistic shots where the smaller depth of field is a benefit, but that's a big price to pay.

Have fun with the Nikon. I think you'll appreciate the speed of a real SLR over that Sony, though the Sony does look like a very capable camera too.

Thank you for the help!

I have a few lens questions, as I'm confused on lenses.
So, the f number is the amount of light it lets in. Less is better.
The mm is the zoom. Lower means the image will be wider/ more will be in the image. Is this correct?
But when I am looking at new lenses, do I need to be looking at standard zoom, wide angle, macro, etc. There's tons on Canon's website.
And lastly, I feel like a fixed lens is a good choice to have, but as you said, it's ideal to have a zoom and a fixed lens. What is a good, affordable, nice looking zoom lens? A fixed lens might be superb for the street, or the backyard. But where my aunt lives, I can't really climb the mountains and get closer to a range of trees. I'd have to zoom in to see it.

Thank you so much for taking your time and helping me. I really appreciate it, both rhysiam and USAFRet

 

[rhysiam]

Thank you for the help!

I have a few lens questions, as I'm confused on lenses.
So, the f number is the amount of light it lets in. Less is better.
The mm is the zoom. Lower means the image will be wider/ more will be in the image. Is this correct?
But when I am looking at new lenses, do I need to be looking at standard zoom, wide angle, macro, etc. There's tons on Canon's website.
And lastly, I feel like a fixed lens is a good choice to have, but as you said, it's ideal to have a zoom and a fixed lens. What is a good, affordable, nice looking zoom lens? A fixed lens might be superb for the street, or the backyard. But where my aunt lives, I can't really climb the mountains and get closer to a range of trees. I'd have to zoom in to see it.

Thank you so much for taking your time and helping me. I really appreciate it, both rhysiam and USAFRet

You've got some reading to... this kind of learning is part of the fun of photography. I'm happy to answer a couple of questions but I'll link an article below which can get you started to learn about other things.

Yes you're right: F stop refers to aperture. Lower lets more light in, but at the cost of a narrower depth of field. Read the article below for a much better explanation than I could give you here. Just to be clear though, all lenses (well, any lenses you're looking at) will have an adjustable aperture, with only the widest (most light) f stop listed in the model. They can all be stepped down, so the f1.8 for example, can shoot at a whole range of apertures from f1.8 all the way to f22 if I remember rightly. It's actually at its sharpest around f8 I believe. So buying a fast (=low F number) lens makes it possible to shoot with less light and narrower depths of field, but they do not force you to shoot that way.

mm is the zoom - you are right again. Just to slightly complicate matters the cameras you're looking at have what's called "cropped" or "APS-C" sensors (both the Nikon and Canon). That means they effectively zoom in a little more than what you'd get with a "full frame" or "35mm" DSLR. You don't really need to worry about that, but if you see articles talking about "full frame equivalent" or similar zooms, that's what they're talking about - they're comparing how wide/telephoto the lens is on a cropped sensor camera (like yours) vs a full frame one.

RE What lenses to get, that totally depends on what you want to do. Macro lenses allow you to focus on subjects that are extremely close (insects, flowers, interesting textures, etc), wide angles are useful for scenery, architecture, etc, telephotos are basically essential for wildlife photography or sports.
Zoom lenses, particularly ones that span a large range (like the 18-135mm, or even "ultra zooms" like Sigma's 18-250mm) are convenient because they can act like wide angle and telephotos in one lens, but they tend to have to compromise on image quality.
Prime lenses (without zoom), on the other hand, have no zoom at all making them much less flexible, but their relative simplicity tends to mean they offer amazing image quality for the price.

The 18-135mm is really great zoom lens to start with. If it's too expensive, the 18-55mm kit lens is fine. That and a 50mm f1.8 is a great start. Once you get into it you'll quickly realise the sorts of shots you like taking and what you need (if anything) to put on your wish list. If you find yourself shooting loads of insects and flowers and wishing you could get closer to them, look at a dedicated macro lens. If you find yourself shooting at 135mm on your lens all the time and wishing you could zoom in a bit further, explore a better telephoto option. If you really appreciate the speed and quality from the 50mm, but want the flexibility of a bit of zoom, get yourself a nice quality modest zoom lens, etc, etc, etc.

Just remember though, your brain and creativity are far more important than your gear. A good photographer with average gear will get far, far better shots than an average photographer with good gear. It's so easy to drool over the premium lenses and convince yourself how much better your shots will look once you get the next thing (I'm frequently guilty of that). But this is where @USAFRet's advice is key... have fun, experiment, read, learn and enjoy your holiday. All those things in the end of the day are much more important that whatever specific lens you buy or don't buy before you go.

*edit** -> sorry... I got a bit carried away with this response didn't I!?

A good intro to DSLR that I referred to above: https/digital-photography-school.com/megapost-learning-how-to-use-your-first-dslr/
Some more info on cropped vs full frame cameras if you're interested: https/digital-photography-school.com/full-frame-sensor-vs-crop-sensor-which-is-right-for-you/
(BUT -> don't worry about full-frame you absolutely do NOT need one and they're a whole new world of expensive. I'm just referencing that if you're interested in why lens reviews and articles talk about the differences)

 

[SniperPenguin]

Thank you so, so much for the elaborate response. I am very happy you took your time to help me out . Your information that you have given to me is priceless, and I'm glad you are being patient with me. I have so much more to learn, and the questions I ask at times can be quite.. Dumb. But nonetheless, you spend your time writing such a great response. Thank you once more.

I think I will try the 110$ 50mm. Once I want a zoom camera, I'll buy a modest zoom lens that is similar to the 18-55 so I can retain good image quality.

The full frame cameras are too expensive. If I will buy a new camera, it will likely be the Canon 800D. I like how it's got almost everything the 77D does, but in a simpler, more affordable package.

I do not see myself using telephoto lenses. It would be great for the upcoming trip, but other than that I will not use them.
Macro, zoom, and fixed 50mm are what I need.

Again, thank you so much! I'll ask my future questions in this thread, but from that reply of yours I doubt I'll have many more.

 

[rhysiam]

Thank you so, so much for the elaborate response. I am very happy you took your time to help me out . Your information that you have given to me is priceless, and I'm glad you are being patient with me. I have so much more to learn, and the questions I ask at times can be quite.. Dumb. But nonetheless, you spend your time writing such a great response. Thank you once more.

I think I will try the 110$ 50mm. Once I want a zoom camera, I'll buy a modest zoom lens that is similar to the 18-55 so I can retain good image quality.

The full frame cameras are too expensive. If I will buy a new camera, it will likely be the Canon 800D. I like how it's got almost everything the 77D does, but in a simpler, more affordable package.

I do not see myself using telephoto lenses. It would be great for the upcoming trip, but other than that I will not use them.
Macro, zoom, and fixed 50mm are what I need.

Again, thank you so much! I'll ask my future questions in this thread, but from that reply of yours I doubt I'll have many more.

Good choice on the camera... if the Nikon doesn't suit you. Just bear in mind that if your only lens is a prime 50mm, it will restrict what you can and can't do with the camera.

There's no dumb questions, don't worry about that. I'm just encouraging you to read tutorials, guides and reviews. You'll get information from people who know far more than I do, and are much better at explaining things. I'm happy to have a crack at answering specific questions to your situation, but if you want more general knowledge (aperture, quality of particularly lenses, etc), you're much better looking for expert guides and reviews.

Glad it's been helpful.

 

[SniperPenguin]

So, I'm soon going to take the Nikon outside.

But I have some PC questions here.

So to my understanding, my 4790k will do just fine. But the lack of an m.2 slot, DDR3, and a low end motherboard makes me want to switch to something else.
Now, if I were to switch to a 7700k or something that is also 4 cores, that would be a massive waste of money. The only way to justify a new CPU and motherboard is to have it be an 8 core CPU.
And Ryzen comes in here. 250$ at my local Microcenter for the 1700x. Great deal.
And the new Intel X299 8 core is 600$. It'll perform better, but I don't think it will be 350$ better. Plus, it's just too much.

But Intel has a 6 core for 380$. Still more than the Ryzen, but with Microcenter discounts, it should be closer to 330$.
It will have faster single core speeds, since it's 1. a 6 core. 2. Intel.
So am I better off with the Ryzen or with the Intel in your opinion?

I've also heard that there will be a Ryzen refresh sometime in August, which may be worth waiting for just for the faster clock speeds.