PirateMcGee
Expedition Leader
I'm considering buying my first dslr..........there are a ton of choices but for my budget I've narrowed it down to a Nikon d3000. Anyone have any experience with one of these? Better alternatives?
Considering an SLR
- Thread starter PirateMcGee
- Start date
Honu
lost on the mainland
These days they are all very good and its just price and what you like really
Things to consider
Do you want to do video ? Will it auto focus on moving objects
Would a swivel rear screen with live view be nice for extra low or high shots
Those are just a few but again you really cant go wrong with a modern dslr
Things to consider
Do you want to do video ? Will it auto focus on moving objects
Would a swivel rear screen with live view be nice for extra low or high shots
Those are just a few but again you really cant go wrong with a modern dslr
nwoods
Expedition Leader
The video question is a biggie, but a mentality you should try to embrace is that the camera is practically disposable in the SLR setup. It's the lenses that matter. No matter what body you get now, you'll be replacing it eventually as technology marches on. But a good lens will last decades.
You'd have trouble nowadays(as we oldies say) finding a bad one. The only thing I'd advise (and I don't know if you've done this yet) is not just to go on the specs, but to actually pick one up and try it. It's the feel of the camera in your hand - whether Nikon, Canon, Pentax or whatever, that determines whether you can get on with it.
I've used 35mm for over 40 years, and many years ago settled on the Canon T90 and F1N for that medium, as they just "felt" better TO ME than the equivalent Nikons. Looking at DSLRs lately, I didn't like the feel of the Canon I looked at, liked the feel of the Nikon I tried, but loved the feel of the Pentax K5 that I tried after that, and will go with that model when the price here comes down a bit. But overall - as nwoods says above, what matters to the quality of your shots is the lenses. Buy the best lenses you can afford, you'll have them a fairly long time, and good lenses are the real investment.
I've used 35mm for over 40 years, and many years ago settled on the Canon T90 and F1N for that medium, as they just "felt" better TO ME than the equivalent Nikons. Looking at DSLRs lately, I didn't like the feel of the Canon I looked at, liked the feel of the Nikon I tried, but loved the feel of the Pentax K5 that I tried after that, and will go with that model when the price here comes down a bit. But overall - as nwoods says above, what matters to the quality of your shots is the lenses. Buy the best lenses you can afford, you'll have them a fairly long time, and good lenses are the real investment.
photoman
Explorer
Very good advice from Lancer and nwoods.
Another important aspect is determining what you are going to be photographing and how serious are you going to get. All manufactures have the ability to provide you with a lens and body that will cover the whole gamut but there are lenses and even bodies specifically built for different subjects.
If you are going to be shooting a majority of one subject (landscapes, sports, wildlife) check into which bodies and lenses are best suited for that. If you are doing a little of everything and just looking to upgrade to better equipment than any body will work and you can go middle of the road on lenses which cover a wide range such as 28-105 and 70-300.
Since you are on a budget you might want to look into buying better lenses and an older body. There are great deals on all kinds of photography forums.
Bikemobile
Adventurer
My expedition and mountain biking buddy is a photography nut. I dabble.
I have a Sony SLR that fits my old minolta auto lenses. Takes great pictures.
My buddy who runs http://www.wildpanoramic.com and has taken all the pictures on it, uses a Canon baby SLR. This camera and its predecessors.
Some examples:
He likes it because its more compact than an SLR and they cost about half as much as a full size SLR. He can get the new model when it comes out with less expense and depreciation than a full size SLR.
I have a Sony SLR that fits my old minolta auto lenses. Takes great pictures.
My buddy who runs http://www.wildpanoramic.com and has taken all the pictures on it, uses a Canon baby SLR. This camera and its predecessors.
Some examples:
He likes it because its more compact than an SLR and they cost about half as much as a full size SLR. He can get the new model when it comes out with less expense and depreciation than a full size SLR.
PirateMcGee
Expedition Leader
went ahead and picked up a nikon d3000 with a 18-55mm nikon lense,
this should get me started, although obviously I'll need a lense with some more range.
this should get me started, although obviously I'll need a lense with some more range.
photoman
Explorer
Congrats!
Here is a page you should save to your favorites:
http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Camera-Lenses/index.page
and a page that has lens tests for both Nikkor and third party lenses
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests
Now go shoot that camera and start posting pictures. :victory:
Here is a page you should save to your favorites:
http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Camera-Lenses/index.page
and a page that has lens tests for both Nikkor and third party lenses
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests
Now go shoot that camera and start posting pictures. :victory:
PirateMcGee
Expedition Leader
Thanks for the links,
I'm taking a digital photography class as my last humanities elective this term so hopefully that will teach me the ropes a little bit.
I'm taking a digital photography class as my last humanities elective this term so hopefully that will teach me the ropes a little bit.
PirateMcGee
Expedition Leader
Got it!!!
Here's some of my first pics
Here's some of my first pics
nwoods
Expedition Leader
Got it!!!
Here's some of my first pics
This is a nice pic. I'm going to PM you with my email address. I want to show you how to make it a little better. I'll post up the results here if you can get it to me soon.
nwoods
Expedition Leader
Scott, thanks for the email. So here's what I did...actually, first I'll go ahead and say I did not quite accomplish what I thought I could. My photoshop skills are not up to the task of what I envisioned.
I cropped the image down from 3800px to around 2000px. I note that at 3800px, the image was less than 3MB, which seems pretty small. The image itself had a lot of grain to it, so I am assuming you shot at less than full image quality for your camera. Also, at 1/30th of a second exposure at ISO 250 for a moving object on a cloudy day, you are pushing it a bit with regards to getting a nice sharp image. At least I hope that's it. Otherwise that 18-55mm lens is not getting you quite where you might want to be in image quality.
Okay, after the crop, I played with the color balance a bit, heightened the exposure a bit, sharpened the image (perhaps oversharpened), and then dodged the dog's muzzle area because it was pretty dark originally.
Here is the result: (posted at forum-friendly 1024px size)
PirateMcGee
Expedition Leader
thanks, I was running through my settings and as it turned out I was shooting at less than optimal resolution (oops!)