Realistic price check and item list to start this wallet vampire of a hobby?

Something entry-level that I can start out with, but enough manual features to serve me well a few years down the line is preferred. Also, lens faggotry? I don't really have any ideas of the kinds of things I'll be shooting, so should I just grab a 50 and call it, or is there something else I should be looking at?

D3100 with a 50 mm & kit lens. It's good enough to start with. If you want to make money off photography, go the Canon equivalent.

best if we knew the budget

any dslr is a good starting point, but i would recommend the nikon D90 and the 50mm f/1.8 or sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 if u can afford it, and then get the 50mm at a later stage

I don't <i>have</i> a budget. I'm looking for a photonoob price range, and the kinds of things I should be looking to get.

I imagine it will range somewhere between 8-1500$?

lol, nice one sided and false advice.

You can make money with any brand.

Are you saying that a Nikon (Fuji, Panasonic, Olympus, Sony, Mamiya, Hasselblad, Leica, etc) in your hands you will not be able to produce photography that sells? If so, something is wrong.

Joe McNally is probably one of the most famous living photographers whose work routinely appears on the covers of National Geographic and other major publications. He uses Nikon. His paycheck is more than what anyone from D2JSP's photography forum is making from their photography with whatever camera on any given day of the week.

Canon Rebel XSI was and is still my starter camera. It came with a 18-55mm lens. I tend to use my 55-250mm lens the most though. The camera and initial lens was $650 on sale. The other lens was $300 I believe. Camera bag was $100.

The only reason he uses Nikon is because he's sponsored by them, aka bribed. We all know he uses Canon glass
Now that's just 1 example. Consider that the majority of people that actually make money off photography (and aren't wanna-be pro hipsters with vintage actions/presets) use Canon, and not only because Canon is less expensive, but because IQ >. Top 10 wed photographers from American Photo, for example, 6/10 use Canon, and two of them aren't even sponsored.

It is not one-sided false advice. If you knew anything about business, you'd realize Nikon is overpriced, and not a smart business investment. Cost/profit ratio early on (first 2 years) simply doesn't add up
I did not say you CANNOT make money off other brands, but the most cost-effective is Canon. Then again, we hardly see work here from you, so there's not much to keep arguing about.

I should have said inb4 canon vs nikon in my first post.



I've used one of those before, how long did it last you before you "outgrew" it?

The fanboyism and brand bashing of this forum is why it isn't more popular. If such were banned and only constructive topics were posted, I'd be a little more inclined to share. As it is, everything is on my website which is findable if one is looking.

I still quite happily use my Nikon D50. It's Nikon's "beginner" DSLR released in '05 (old in digital camera terms).
Basically, 6MP is more than enough for me, and I've got some decently sized 12x18 inch prints from the camera that look perfect when viewed close up. Anything bigger than that is useful, but not essential.

It also has a built in AF motor, so much cheaper (but still excellent optically) AF-D lenses focus just fine, which won't happen on the newer entry model Nikon's.

You could pick up a D50 on eebay for dirt cheap (under £200, with kit 18-55mm lens), leaving you with more money to spend on stuff that'll help you improve your photography, namely a cheap flash (Nikon SB-600) and some decent lenses (50/1.8, for example).

Of course, high iso performance sucks on the D50, but having the flash and faster lenses more than compensates for that, and the gear will be usable when you feel that the camera body is holding you back and you need to upgrade.