I am looking at a DSLR Camera
 

I am looking to finally purchase a DSLR. I'm looking at the Nikon d3000, 10.2 MPX and it comes with the 18-55 lense. Does anyone have any experience with this camera?

Also, what else should I pick up with the camera other than a memory card?

Re: I am looking at a DSLR Camera
 

Darrell,
There is a thread a few months ago from Patrick, Mr. Maduro, where we beat to death just about all cameras.
Me personally? I am a Nikon fan and have the D80 but hear it is now discontinued.
Only have seen the 3000 you refer to on commercials. Looks nice.
Get the best lens you can for the money.
I have the 28-105 mm Nikkor and it is an awesome lens.

Re: I am looking at a DSLR Camera
 

Ah if their is already a thread, I'll find it. Sorry for the duplicate.

Mods you can lock this up.

Re: I am looking at a DSLR Camera
 

http://www.cigarasylum.com/vb/showthread.php?t=6976

Not much on the D3000 but some other good info. :tu

Re: I am looking at a DSLR Camera
 

Nikon fan here as well. The D3000 is a good looking camera, but you might could find a D40 for cheaper and its going to do basically the same in every aspect, but is a tad lower in resolution if I remember off hte top of my head.

Theres alot of great info about nikons, canons, and everything else on www.kenrockwell.com he does reviews on the stuff and as far as i know doesnt get paid from either source or anything.

edit: for a general purpose do everything lens, spend hte money and get a Nikon 18-200 VR lens. Its fabulous. i've not taken it off my camera since i bought it.

Re: I am looking at a DSLR Camera
 

I havnt messed with the D-3000, but im sure if Nikon stuck to what they normally do, its basically and updated D40 and thats a great thing! Although most reviews ive read are good on the 3000 Ken Rockwell (whose opinion is not the most highly regarded on most camera forums) clearly wasnt a fan of the 3000. http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3000.htm

They only thing you should think about adding right off the bat is probably a second lens. The kit lense is that 18-55 which is in my opinion a little crappy. My girlfriend uses it with her D40 and it drives me up the wall when I use it. Something about it just feels cheap, while the pictures turn out well, it just doesnt feel very well made. Im sure youve read a lot of articles but heres some time saver if you havnt read Thom Hogan's review of the lens http://www.bythom.com/1855lens.htm

For just an all around lens thats not gonna set you back tons, look for a white boxed, 18-105. I think they are around $300-350 last i looked Thats the lens that comes with all the D-90s so theres tons of them out there. Other than being a little soft at the end has worked out well for a great walk around lens with plenty of range. That would be just my suggestion. But it really depends on what your shooting. For me the 18-55mm is limiting in the longer length so thats where the 105 helped me. If your curious for more 18-105 shots by an amatuer ive got about 30 on my flickr acct that will give you examples of what someone who has no clue what they are doing can give you. So i give all credit to the hardware. http://www.flickr.com/photos/calexan/

Ive also heard that the 35mm DX prime is a really great lens that makes you use the dreaded foot focus to get your shots.

I threw a couple of examples in at the bottom. While nothing to write home to mom about picture quality is great with both lenses. Just remember neither of us really know what we are doing.

Shot with a 18-105 on a D90
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3477/...3bd520b7_b.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2537/...35d20752_b.jpg


Shot with the 18-55 on a D40 (by the gf)
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2428/...78b64b87_b.jpg

Re: I am looking at a DSLR Camera
 

And why is this in the cigar thread..... i just noticed that

Re: I am looking at a DSLR Camera
 

I occasionally look at getting a new DSLR, to replace
my 8MP Nikon Prosumer (Coolpix 8800).

There are two things that I'm looking for:

1) at LEAST double the number of pixels (16MP)

2) a full 24mm X 36mm sensor, to make use of
previously owned Nikon 35mm AF glass.

The Coolpix is nice, but won't make anything larger
than an OK 11X14, or a nice 8X10.

I understand that Nikon does have a full sized sensor
line, now. Good. I think it's the DX line. Not sure.

It would be nice to be able to afford Photoshop, and
learn it thoroughly, too. But, Adobe wants too much $$$$.
My entire wet darkroom didn't cost what Adobe wants
for just the current version of CS4 Design Premium. Sheesh.

Chemyst :cool2:

Re: I am looking at a DSLR Camera
 

Check out the D90, you can still find them new and its a great camera as well, just a year old.

Its more about getting to know the features of the camera and making the work best, then buying the most expensive camera thinking it will take the best pictures.

Re: I am looking at a DSLR Camera
 

DX is the smaller digital sensor. FX is full frame. Most old Nikon lenses fit on the new DSLR bodies. But some functions like TTL metering don't work. In bad cases, even AF doesn't work. But that's rare.

Re: I am looking at a DSLR Camera
 

I'm a canon guy.

Won't get into Canon vs. Nikon (as that discussion can end nowhere good lol)

BUT, you can get a 40D for relatively cheap right now (and it is has a better sensor than the newer 50D :tu)

Or, the new rebels that Canon has come out with are really not bad, then you can save $$ on the body and focus on the lens.

I am assuming the Nikon you looked at comes with a kit lens. It is my opinion that kit lenses are FAR less superior than spending some money on a better lens. The body is not what is important for quality pictures (having the most MPs, etc doesn't matter) Sacrifice a little bit on the body if you are on budget and put it into a better lens. A faster, sharper lens will help out way more than an extra MP or two for the body.

Re: I am looking at a DSLR Camera
 

I have tons of both Nikon and Canon film and digital gear.

3 Nikon Bodies, 3 Canon Bodies, about 12 lenses total.

Both Nikon and Canon make perfectly acceptable DSLR's. My take-everywhere camera is a 4 year old Nikon D50. In my experience, the Canon shutters are quieter. My Nikons have slower, but more reliable auto-focus.

The 2 best good investments you can make:

1. A GREAT QUALITY bag that is cushioned enough to protect your gear and light enough that you can carry it around all day.
2. A tripod or monopod. Carbon fiber is expensive, but much lighter.

(As a bonus suggestion, regardless of what brand of body you get, spring for a 50mm/f1.8 lens. $100-125 or so, and essential for low-light photography. Your least expensive option in a prime (non-zoom) low-light lens.

Also, never buy grey market (not intended for US sale) stuff. You might save a few bucks, but not having a warranty isn't worth it.

PM me if you need more advice.

Example pics taken with my D50
http://www.facebook.com/album.php?ai...6&l=574b4eaa24
http://www.facebook.com/album.php?ai...6&l=9b72703b62

Re: I am looking at a DSLR Camera
 

I think anything of 10MP is almost overkill. Unless im printing posters for a living ive never came close to needing a 12+MP camera. So long as im shooting ISO 100-200 its always pretty clear when blown up.

I think the megapixel race between the companies got way out of hand way to quick. People will see a 6MP D40 and think their 12MP Point and Shoot will give them better pictures...... Its sad walking into an electronic store and seeing that most of the people there are just comparing MPs

Re: I am looking at a DSLR Camera
 

Darrell

I would ask yourself what your looking for in a camera before you buy one.
I will agree with everyone here that Nikon is the way to go. I just bought a Nikon D5000 and couldn't be happier with my choice. The D5000 is a go between the D90 and the D60. You get a lot of the bells and whistles of the D90 without the price tag. The D90 will run you "Body and Lens" around $1200 depending of where you shop. However for you can get a D5000 for $850. The D5000 also does 5min HD movies that you can play back on your TV, I nice little option for quick video. The D5000 has a swivel screen making hard see shots "over crowds" easier. The interface on the D5000 has also been overhauled, with the flick of your thumb you can select the type of setting your are planning to shot and the camera will adjust the shutter speed to match the requirements. here is a great video so you can see what I'm referring to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pbz6BaT5tMk&feature=fvw/

No matter what camera you pick I'm sure you will be happy, also one thing to remember, The camera is a just a tool its the director that makes the shot ;)

-Doug/Dux

Re: I am looking at a DSLR Camera
 

Unless you are shooting high end photos, you shouldn't worry too much about the MP. I believe at 5mp, you should get a great blow up resolution for an 8x10 photos.

I got a D90 last year and have been very happy with it. I got a 18-200 zoom (non-kit), and have since picked up the SP-900 flash, but I want more lenses. I also shoot in RAW+JPG Fine, so I keep picking up 16GB SD cards whenever they are on sale.

Re: I am looking at a DSLR Camera
 

As for accessories, aside from lenses, flash, etc., Christian is right about a good bag and a tripod. For the tripod, keep this in mind - if the tripod is both small enough and light enough for you to feel comfortable carrying it around, it is worthless. The purpose of a good tripod is to hold your camera/lens both steady and in safety. To properly do this, it needs to be a pain in your @$$ to lug about. Sad fact, but true. Your health insurance may cover your hernia operation, but your warrenty will not cover a dropped camera.

Re: I am looking at a DSLR Camera
 

I ended up going with a Lodge Brother today who is a photographer.

I got a Nikon d40 with the 18-55 lens. He also gave me the 18-200 lens because it just collects dust for him.

I think my next purchase for it will be the SB 600 flash. I got a nice bag, but no tripod yet.

Re: I am looking at a DSLR Camera
 

I agree 100%.

Re: I am looking at a DSLR Camera
 

Very good camera.

Darrell,
As a former photographer who carried around on his shoulder enough flash power to reach the moon, I believe in more as opposed to less when it comes to flash power. You can always tone down power but you can't push power you don't have. I particularly used more as I threw light around, as opposed to directly at my subject.
Spend the extra money on the SB800.

I like it better than the SB600 for a few reasons.
One, already mentioned, more power.
Two, comes with a nifty diffuser cap that will allow you to shoot just about anywhere indoors with soft lighting as I did for weddings. You can always buy (and should) a better diffuser like a Gary Fong Whale or Dome.
Three, more power.
Four, more power.

Those are the eight good reasons.:r

Re: I am looking at a DSLR Camera
 

Yeah, flash power is good - that's why I usually carry a small thermonuclear device in my Tenba.

Re: I am looking at a DSLR Camera
 

I'm a Canon guy as well, and the 40d is one of the best cropped sensor dSLR's out there. Canon's lenses are far superior to Nikon's...especially in the pro level (which you may never need- but notice next time you watch a pro sports event- 95% of all the photogs have big, giant white Canon L lenses on a monopod. That's not a coincidence.

By the way, megapixels are no longer an issue, unless you are a professional commercial or fashion photographer. You can make poster size prints from an 8mp camera that look great. Lots of megapixels just mean less space on your memory cards and unwieldy file sizes if you do any post-processing.

It's already been said, but you're better off buying an older body and investing in good lenses. Bodies go obsolete every 3 years or so, but good lenses can be used forever if you take care of them.

Re: I am looking at a DSLR Camera
 

Darrell, how fast are those 2 lenses?

Re: I am looking at a DSLR Camera
 

Jim,
I think one ran the 1/4 mile in about 5 seconds.
The other was sluggish as did too many "f stops" along the way.:r:r:r

(You can tell I am doing better - wife came home and helped tremendously)

Re: I am looking at a DSLR Camera
 

Love my gf's D40. Great size and great images. Im hoping she gets tired of photography so i can use it as a backup to my D90 :)

Re: I am looking at a DSLR Camera
 

Nice pickup Darrell!

My sister-in-law picked up the same model after I got the D60 (I didn't have enough money for the D80/90 at the time).

Have fun with it!:tu

Re: I am looking at a DSLR Camera
 

As a professional photographer in my past life (although at that time, medium format was the choice as digital did not exist), I agree with Canon being far superior and the one of choice for professionals.
HOWEVER, that is on the very expensive and professional level.

On "hobby" level, they are all quite comparable and a matter of personal preference for look, feel, and features. I happened to like the features of the D80 for the money at the time as compared to the next level up on Canon. For the stuff I do now, would never need anything other than my 28-105 mm from Nikon, which is a very nice lens and higher quality than the other common ones that come with the camera.

Totally agree on the overhype of MP. I have done tests taking an 8x10 and then taking a quarter of that 8x10 and making a new 8x10 out of that. Did it with 3.2 MP and did it with 5. It was only in that manner I could detect any type of minimal difference. If comparing a 3 MP to an 5 MP to a 10 MP 8x10, with nothing other than these 50 yr old eyes, heck if I can notice what I would call considerable difference for the average buff in spite of having spent years seeing photos and negatives. No need for 10 MP other than to take up space or blow up it up to the size of your bedroom wall.

Re: I am looking at a DSLR Camera
 

OP, in terms of what to go with you need to mainly consider what your intended long term uses are. In the entry level ranges all the manufacturers (Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax, Sony,etc) produce very capable cameras that will more than do what the average consumer is looking for. Canon and Nikon tend to be more expensive than the 4/3rds crowd and have far more extensive systems that you can buy into in terms of lighting and lens options. However their advantage doesn't really come into play until you start getting into their semi-pro to pro level gear.

If you think photography is something that you're likely to turn into a serious hobby it may be worth it to go with one of those companies just for the future expansion. If on the other hand you're like the vast majority of people who just want a camera to take good photos of family and vacations and will probably stay in the standard 18mm to 200mm focal range with maybe a wide angle then any of them will do the job for you. Best bet in that situation is to go into a photography store and play with all the various makes that fall in your price range. Base your decision on which camera feels the best and most natural in your hand.

While I'm personally a Nikon guy, the best value for money in entry level DSLR's is usually found in Olympus and Pentax lines. Especially if you like very small, very light cameras.


Just a note about this, please take everything Ken Rockwell says with an extremely large grain of salt since he's the biggest fan boy for whatever happens to be either the latest and greatest or his current obsession. He's not taken particularly seriously by anyone in the real photography world so I certainly wouldn't take his word or reviews as gospel. There's some decent information on his site but taking it too seriously would be like going to Jeremy Clarkson for a serious review of a car you might actually buy.

1. Pixel density is pretty much irrelevant at this point unless you plan on printing huge blowups..... and by huge I mean dimensions measured in feet instead of inches. With the exception of the top-of-the-line pro 24mp D3X ($7500), all of Nikon's current DSLR line are 12mp. Even the old 6mp D70 is capable of producing much higher quality images than your Coolpix 8800 so I wouldn't get hung up on the numbers. Rather go with the body that has the features you need and feels most comfortable in your hand.

2. Nikon's full frame line is the FX (D700, D3 and variants). All of your old Nikon glass will work on any of the current bodies however you won't have auto-focus on older glass with the entry level bodies (D60 and D3000) as they don't have an AF motor built into the body. The D90 and above will auto-focus all Nikon glass since AF was introduced however as mentioned above your TTL and metering by distance will be hit or miss. Full frame glass on a crop sensor (ie. the DX line) will simply produce a crop equivalency in the lens' effective focal range. Nikon's DX crop is 1.6x which means the focal length of full frame glass is 40% longer on a DX body than an FX. For example, using your old 50mm F1.8 normal lens on a DX body will be the equivalent of using a 70mm lens on a film or FX body.

Re: I am looking at a DSLR Camera
 

I agree 100% I find his reviews "Cameras" and comparisons to be miss leading. He seems to just toss out opinions without any type of research or data to back up his statements.

I did find his review on some Lenses helpful

Re: I am looking at a DSLR Camera
 

You could do as I did. Adobe elements can be found in the 80 range. buy it and register it. Adobe send out upgrade to PS emails at half price a couple of times a year. Net is a lot less than PS at retail...

Re: I am looking at a DSLR Camera
 

I take pretty much everything in life with a grain of salt. I use rockwell's site for more of a reference point. he does a fairly good job from what i can see about listing whats coming out and whats alraedy out. Also its a easy to read format on manufacturer specs and things of that nature. as far as his test and things, i dont pay attention to them 85% of the time.

Re: I am looking at a DSLR Camera
 

Darrell,
Since this will be your first dSLR, and you're considering the D3000, then I can reasonably guess that you:
1. WANT an economical, flexible system for about $500 plus a bit for accessories
2. WANT a device that is easy to learn and use
These were my two primary considerations when I bought my first dSLR in February of 2007. However, when I went to buy my second, the critical questions were different.

The next two questions should be answered and then, and only then, can you really confidently make a decision that will be perfect for you.

1. What is your subject? Kids running around inside the house? Birds on the wing? Teenager on the football field? The palace at Angkor Wat? You need to know this so that you can define the camera and lens setup that will meet the requirements of capturing your subject well.
For example, if it's your fast moving toddler inside the house, then you will want a short, wide lens (18-55mm in APS-C cropped), and a light body. You'll also want a flash with bounce capability. If your son the footballer is your target, then you'll want an image stabilized zoom of around 300 mm on the long end and a body that records 6-7 frames per second. If shooting in low, available light, still subjects, and where flash is prohibited (i.e., galleries, historical sites, museums) then you'll want a set of fast lenses (35mm f1.8, 50mm f1.4, 80mmf1.2) and a body that has great high-ISO performance.

Why is this important? Because even if you can afford prestigious pro glass like the Nikon 70-200mm VR f2.8 II or 24-70mm f2.8, you'll be cursing it for its weight and/or the inability to capture all of the scene you're looking at as you're chasing the diaperless wonder zooming across your den. And while the 35mm f1.8 might be cool (I have one), you will definitely NOT want to be foot-zooming over and across Legos, Bratz dolls, or Tonka trucks just to frame your subject because 1) you'll trip and fall, 2) you'll miss the shot.

When I bought my first dSLR, I knew that shooting my infant and toddler daughters and family would be 97% of my subjects. So, the 18-55mm that came with the body was perfect, perfect, perfect...especially when coupled with a bounce head flash.

2. What is your aspiration as a photographer? You don't need to cop to wanting to be the next Ansel Adams to justify purchasing a camera system. Likewise, buying a $7,000 Leica M9 and $20,000 worth of Leica glass will not make you into one. Do you feel comfortable never using more than 10% of a system's capabilities? Not I. If you don't foresee becoming "serious" about photography (and I don't mean ever, I mean in the next 3-5 years) then spend only what you need to get by plus a bit more. I don't want to be a pro. Hell, I don't even want to be an advanced amateur or an enthusiast. I just want to be able to take good photos of my kids with minimal fuss. You decide for yourself.

As for the APS-C cropped frame versus full-frame (FX) argument, forget it. Put it out of your head. For the beginning dSLR shootist with modest aspirations, APS-C cameras will give you everything you could reasonably want, at a price that is pleasant, in a size and weight format that is manageable. Micro 4/3? Forget about it. It's new, it ain't cheap, there isn't much glass, and a couple of other things...but basically, APS-C is tested, companies know how to make reflex bodies, and for beginner units, there isn't much size or weight difference.

As for the Nikon vs. Canon, Canon vs. Pentax, etc. comparisons. Forget it. The entry level bodies in any of these lines are competent devices and performance will be limited not by the hardware but by the shooter. Decide what you want to shoot. Find out what focal lengths and speeds you need in lenses, then find the manufacturer who has these at a price you want to pay. I know Nikon because I use Nikon.

Megapixels? Forget about it. The lowest you're likely to find is 6MP and the highest, between 12-15MP. And you know what? If you're moving up from a point and shoot pocket camera, print no larger than 8x10, don't regularly crop your images like a mofo, then even 6MP will give you the most wonderful, amazing images for 4x6 prints, digital picture frames, and web album sharing. Sure, you could theoretically print a better looking 2' x 3' poster size from a 15MP file than a 6 MP file, but really...who the heck does regularly enough to justify the pixel war? And besides, there's the "secret" that makes the argument moot anyway. And remember, more MP = bigger files and greater storage requirements. 6MP files take 2.4 MB. 12MP files take 7 MB. I have three HDDs to back up my images.

Video capability? Unless you're serious, it's a novelty. This is brand new and even Nikon and Canon are still figuring it all out. Trust me, it'll do in a pinch but it is no replacement for a dedicated videocam.

So, what did I buy in 2007? A Nikon D40 kit with the 18-55mm lens, then an SB-400 flash. Am I happy. Yep. While I eventually added a few other lenses and a bigger flash, this is the setup that allowed me to document the first 2 years of my daughter's life over nearly 17,000 images. This setup gave me everything I needed. Light weight, good zoom range, fill and bounce flash, and...well that's all I needed to take some of the most meaningful pictures of my life.

I was ready for another camera in the late winter of 2008 and so I added the Nikon D90 to my kit. Different questions. Different needs and concerns. The D90 (or more precisely, its predecessor the D80) would not have been the right camera for me in 2007. And likewise, the D40 would not have met some of my requirements in 2008.

So you see, there is no pat answer. But know what you want to shoot and how much you're willing to invest (and not just in terms of cash) and you'll be able to make a decision confidently and with high likelihood that you'll be happy taking photos...which, I gather, is really what you want.

For the average beginner, snap shooter, family and dog photog looking to spend under $700-800 all told, I'd say get the Nikon D40 while you still can. Add a flash, a few 2-4GB SD cards, an extra battery, and a clear protective filter and you're ready to rock. I guarantee it. If you can spend more, have bigger hands, and dig gadgets, go for the D90. The D300 is a biiiiiiiig step up and is not a beginner's camera.

Wilkey

PS. Right now, I have a D40 and D90 body, 18-55, 18-55 VR, 18-200 VR, 18-105 VR, 35mm f1.8, SB-400, SB-600, a bunch of filters, spare batteries, and SD cards up to 8GB, a fold-up diffuser, lens brush and puffer, two Tamrac bags, a cheapo tripod, and some miscellaneous junk. I've tried a ton of other lenses, the D300, etc. but these things allow me to photograph anything that I'd care to photograph as far as kids, family, picnics, etc.

Re: I am looking at a DSLR Camera
 

Lots of good advice/info in this thread.
Here is one item I consider well worth every penny of the $49 it costs, which I alluded to earlier.

Darrell,
You put this on an SB800 or any good digital flash and you will shoot like a Pro.
Not one indoor shot needing flash should ever be without this device.
Lots of other variations in the market but I truly like this one.
What most photographers accomplish with multiple lighting and 2 to 1 ratio for portraits, this can accomplish almost the same look, without the multiple lights.
Knocks out any harsh glare on subjects, eliminates shadows cast by the flash, eliminates red eye as no direct light to eye to bounce off iris, opens up the background to simulate what the eye sees as opposed the darkness when flash straight on, etc.
http://store.garyfonginc.com/lsu-cloud.html

Re: I am looking at a DSLR Camera
 

Im guessing the 18-200 is the AF-s 18-200mm VR f/3.5 - 5.6G DX IF-ED and the 18-55 is the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor.