Build the best complete kit for under $1000 challenge

[havoc315]

Just thought I'd open a discussion for some fun... Maybe exchange ideas as well,
How would you complete the best possible complete kit from scratch for under $1000? (Including camera body, lenses, major gear. Used or new. Not including memory cards, etc)

My suggestion, as a Sony shooter:
Sony A57 body. Now $475 on Amazon
A used Tamron 17-50 2.8. About $300.
A Minolta beercan for telephoto -- 70-210f4- my mint copy was $125
A Minolta nifty fifty for low light-- 50mm 1.7. $60 approximately.

If you can get student pricing of Lightroom 4-- your total comes to just barely over $1000 before tax. I chose to forego external flash and tripod for now.

 

[cjstarr]

I don't think I will be able to make it at $1000.

Sony 57 $480
Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6 $109
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 $280

Total $869

That leaves $131 to find a 30mm or 35mm f/1.8
I'm not to sure that I can do it.

 

[mabas9395]

Depends what kind of kit you want? Do you want a portrait kit, a landscape kit, a sports kit a macro kit, the perfect disney kit, etc?

 

[havoc315]

Depends what kind of kit you want? Do you want a portrait kit, a landscape kit, a sports kit a macro kit, the perfect disney kit, etc?

I was thinking best all-around kit as possible. Though if you want to build a specialized kit, go ahead.

 

[HPS3]

I remember when I thought I would never spend $1000 on a camera. Now it's hard to think of a package under that even used. Personally i would go

Sony Nex 6 16-50 used ~ $800
Many manual lenses ~ $200

 

[JoeDif]

Olympus E-PM1 with 14-42mm f3.5-5.6 & 40-150mm f4-5.6 $499
Sigma 30mm f2.8 $199
Sigma 19mm f2.8 $199

 

[WDWFigment]

Nikon D3100 + 18-55 - $299 - (http://slickdeals.net/f/5981736-Nik...by-Nikon-299-W-FS-Adorama-via-eBay-Daily-Deal)
Sigma 30mm f/1.4 - $219 - (http://slickdeals.net/permadeal/935...-dc-hsm-autofocus-lens-for-nikon-dslr-cameras)
Luxi L Tripod + Manfrotto ballhead + third party IR or wired remote - ~$200

That puts me under $1,000, but the prices for the Sigma and the camera are hot deals that are no longer available. I'd save any money under $1,000 and put it towards a Tokina 11-16...

Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 - $499 (http://slickdeals.net/permadeal/855...gle-zoom-lens-for-nikon-or-canon-dslr-cameras)

Personally, (even in a hypothetical) I'd rather wait and get gear that I truly want, rather than blowing my entire budget on cheap stuff that I'd quickly replace.

 

[havoc315]

Nikon D3100 + 18-55 - $299 - (http://slickdeals.net/f/5981736-Nik...by-Nikon-299-W-FS-Adorama-via-eBay-Daily-Deal)
Sigma 30mm f/1.4 - $219 - (http://slickdeals.net/permadeal/935...-dc-hsm-autofocus-lens-for-nikon-dslr-cameras)
Luxi L Tripod + Manfrotto ballhead + third party IR or wired remote - ~$200

That puts me under $1,000, but the prices for the Sigma and the camera are hot deals that are no longer available. I'd save any money under $1,000 and put it towards a Tokina 11-16...

Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 - $499 (http://slickdeals.net/permadeal/855...gle-zoom-lens-for-nikon-or-canon-dslr-cameras)

Personally, (even in a hypothetical) I'd rather wait and get gear that I truly want, rather than blowing my entire budget on cheap stuff that I'd quickly replace.

While I agree with the sentiment--- budget and "cheap" are relative terms.

There are some who don't blink at spending $5000 on hobbyist camera gear in the long term, and there are many who while professing to care about photography, can't even imagine spending over $500

I thought for this little exercise, that $1,000 was a nice realistic budget that someone who wants to take it fairly seriously, may be willing to invest.

Plus as we all know -- especially in photography, 10 times the price does not equate with a 10 times superior final photograph. We don't all need a 70-200 2.8 lens. So I thought this was a chance for people to voice the best possible gear they would choose under budgetary constraints.

And thought the discussion might be helpful for readers on the board that look for equipment recommendations. As a bit of a wine lover, I know of getting lost in a wine shop unable to differentiate between the various $25 bottles.
Same with lenses and photography gear. By looking at 3rd party gear, used gear-- there may be superior options that the Nikon/Canon/Sony/Pentax sales rep won't be pushing.

 

[PythonFan888]

If I can't spend over $1000 I would just get a Sony RX100 plus a few accessories and call it a day.

 

[mom2rtk]

Nikon D3100 + 18-55 - $299 - (http://slickdeals.net/f/5981736-Nik...by-Nikon-299-W-FS-Adorama-via-eBay-Daily-Deal)
Sigma 30mm f/1.4 - $219 - (http://slickdeals.net/permadeal/935...-dc-hsm-autofocus-lens-for-nikon-dslr-cameras)
Luxi L Tripod + Manfrotto ballhead + third party IR or wired remote - ~$200

That puts me under $1,000, but the prices for the Sigma and the camera are hot deals that are no longer available. I'd save any money under $1,000 and put it towards a Tokina 11-16...

Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 - $499 (http://slickdeals.net/permadeal/855...gle-zoom-lens-for-nikon-or-canon-dslr-cameras)

Personally, (even in a hypothetical) I'd rather wait and get gear that I truly want, rather than blowing my entire budget on cheap stuff that I'd quickly replace.

..... thus my oft repeated message here that the most expensive lens is the one you have to buy twice. But you really have to know yourself and how happy you will be buying something less expensive than what you really want.

Which makes the second part of this post somewhat ironic. I was really disappointed to find that Tokina deal to be an old one. I was ready to pull the trigger ..... for the second time in the last few years. I sold my Tokina a couple years ago in favor of the Canon 10-22 but have decided I now want to go back. I'm thankful at least that I got almost what I spent back out of the Tokina and got a decent deal on the Canon used on Ebay. But I'm really annoyed with myself for now for going back in the market for a UWA yet again.....

 

[WDWFigment]

While I agree with the sentiment--- budget and "cheap" are relative terms.

There are some who don't blink at spending $5000 on hobbyist camera gear in the long term, and there are many who while professing to care about photography, can't even imagine spending over $500

I thought for this little exercise, that $1,000 was a nice realistic budget that someone who wants to take it fairly seriously, may be willing to invest.

Plus as we all know -- especially in photography, 10 times the price does not equate with a 10 times superior final photograph. We don't all need a 70-200 2.8 lens. So I thought this was a chance for people to voice the best possible gear they would choose under budgetary constraints.

And thought the discussion might be helpful for readers on the board that look for equipment recommendations. As a bit of a wine lover, I know of getting lost in a wine shop unable to differentiate between the various $25 bottles.
Same with lenses and photography gear. By looking at 3rd party gear, used gear-- there may be superior options that the Nikon/Canon/Sony/Pentax sales rep won't be pushing.

I understand exactly the point of the exercise, and I was once in the boat of being uneasy about spending on photography. When I got started, I didn't even buy my Nikon D40 new because its $499 kit price was too much.

However, once I realized photography was "for me", and I started upgrading equipment, I did so with an eye toward having gear that was high quality rather than filling all needs as quickly as I could with my immediate budget. I think it's better to have quality equipment and gaps in your lens lineup than to have a "complete" set of lenses that aren't what you truly want. There is no such thing as a complete kit, anyway.

For example, I could have afforded the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 a couple of months earlier, but instead I waited and got the superior Sigma 30mm f/1.4.

I'm not saying that people should wait forever to buy the absolute best (certainly saving your money to buy a D4 and Nikon 14-24mm in three years isn't a better option than buying a D7000 and Tokina 11-16mm now, because the former means 3 years of "missed" photos in the meantime), but I think spending money "now" just because you have the money is often a poor idea when it comes to photography. You'll quickly find yourself replacing those "gap filler" items.

 

[havoc315]

I understand exactly the point of the exercise, and I was once in the boat of being uneasy about spending on photography. When I got started, I didn't even buy my Nikon D40 new because its $499 kit price was too much.

However, once I realized photography was "for me", and I started upgrading equipment, I did so with an eye toward having gear that was high quality rather than filling all needs as quickly as I could with my immediate budget. I think it's better to have quality equipment and gaps in your lens lineup than to have a "complete" set of lenses that aren't what you truly want. There is no such thing as a complete kit, anyway.

For example, I could have afforded the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 a couple of months earlier, but instead I waited and got the superior Sigma 30mm f/1.4.

I'm not saying that people should wait forever to buy the absolute best (certainly saving your money to buy a D4 and Nikon 14-24mm in three years isn't a better option than buying a D7000 and Tokina 11-16mm now, because the former means 3 years of "missed" photos in the meantime), but I think spending money "now" just because you have the money is often a poor idea when it comes to photography. You'll quickly find yourself replacing those "gap filler" items.

I agree with everything you said.
Though much of your eye for quality, depends on the level of your passion and the time you've invested.

As a drinker of quality wine, I'm often confronted by someone who says, with all honesty, that they can't tell the difference between a $20 bottle and $100 bottle.

Applied to your examples-- for many many people with a moderate interest in photography, the 35mm 1.8 will serve them almost identically to the 30mm 1.4.
To such a person, would I recommend they save and wait? Or as the 35mm 1.8 will truly serve their low light needs, I'd tell them not to bother with the more expensive lens.
To Tom Bricker... I'd say save and wait. To the poster on the board that says, "I just got a Canon T3, what lens should I buy to take dark ride pics at Disney next week?" I'd tell such person they will be really happy with the 35-1.8.

Of course, some people, myself included-- as their passion grows, their eye becomes more distinguishing, and they outgrow their lenses. For a long time, I was happy with my nifty fifty for portraits. I certainly got my $60 worth out of the lens, but it now sits in the back of a closet. As my eye has become more discerning, my passion grown, I'm much pickier about my lenses.