Cigar Asylum Cigar Forum - View Single Post

Ginseng · 10-09-2009, 02:32 PM

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.

10-09-2009, 02:32 PM	#31
Ginseng Light me up, bro Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 25 Trading: (3)	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.