Head photography

Let me try to say that 2000 is really a bit tight. The second-hand 50/ 1.8 from various manufacturers is really not expensive, but the picture quality is not guaranteed under large aperture. I used Nikon's 50/ 1.8, but it was just ok. If it is 50/ 1.4, everything will be better, most of them. I have also used Canon's 50/ 1.8, and I feel that it is a bit cheap from workmanship to image quality, which is a bit unacceptable when the aperture is large. Of course, under the condition of good lighting conditions and appropriate aperture range, there are also many high-quality pictures on the basis of rational use of fuselage settings. What I want to say is that there are many preconditions. If you are a novice, it may be difficult to master and adapt for a while. Canon's 50/ 1.4 is better than 1.8 in some aspects, but it is not too bad in many aspects.

I understand what you are thinking now, but under the premise of reducing funds, you can't make do too much. Otherwise, on the one hand, it may discourage you, on the other hand, it may cause "tossing equipment repeatedly". These two things are really not worth the candle. I agree with upstairs that we can start with 18-55. First, the price is cheaper. Second, the scope of application is wider. For a beginner, no one can stand it for too long, sooner or later. In this process, we can discover and feel what we really want. For example, if we always find that we want to shoot too far, then you may not be able to shoot.

As for the fuselage, the D80 is good and can support you for quite some time. The D70 is cheap, but it's too old. It's hard for you to buy second-hand now, and you don't know how many hands. The D70S has more functions, but it's too old. Moreover, the colors taken in the 1970s and 1970s will be darker, because at that time, Nikon's philosophy was to take photos with large room in the later period to prevent irreparable losses such as overexposure and high saturation, so it often underexposed and the colors tended to be gray, so as to give you room for PS in the later period. (At that time, digital SLR was still a very high-end product, I believe only professional photographers need to buy it, and professional photographers will do it later anyway), but after the popularity of SLR, Nikon changed its position and also provided models that can be directly made into films. D50 and D50 are like simplified versions of D70s, but with bright colors, high contrast and sharpness as always. It's Nikon's transformation, but it's a bit overkill, a bit too much. I used to buy a second-hand D50 when the funds were very close, and I always used 50/ 1.4. After using it for a year, it feels ok. If money is really tight, I can consider D50. Of course, D80 is recommended first.

I don't think you mentioned D40, D40x and D60. It is estimated that you are not satisfied with their simple shape and volume, but their final drawing performance may be better than the above three old ministers, and they will save some effort in the later stage. It depends on you personally.

As for PS, I think it is indispensable in the digital age. It has gained more freedom and enough space. There is no doubt that this is a good thing. There is no competition between it and the camera equipment. Where the camera is wrong or can't reach it, it can be supplemented, polished, processed and modified. And some effects are created out of thin air because PS technology can't replace camera shooting, so it's all for you. It is the most important thing to make good use of them and fully express your own things.

Finally, even if you are rich in economy, have played for many years and have mature technology, you don't necessarily need Quan Huafu equipment. Compared with APS equipment, Quan Huafu equipment does have many advantages, but many of these aspects are aimed at professional photographers, such as the need for large output, shooting with ultra-high ISO sensitivity in poor light environment, or the need for high-resolution file-level pictures or reshoot. I admit, these are attractive to everyone, but in terms of frequency of use, if you have money, you should write more articles about lenses. The most important factor of picture quality is the lens. I think so, too. As you said, blurring is not a question of whether PS is better or worse than camera, but a question of lens. Some things shot by high-end lens really can't be killed by PS, hehe, go back to the above paragraph.

I said so much at will, I hope I can help you. It's all coming this way. I hope to speak out when I see it, because I am very eager for the careful and sincere guidance and support of my predecessors when I am confused. I hope everything goes well with you!