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?

[Blueface]

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.

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

Mods you can lock this up.

[Mr.Maduro]

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

Not much on the D3000 but some other good info.

[Scothew]

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.

[mithrilG60]

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.

Originally Posted by Scothew

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Chemyst

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.

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.

[Dux]

Originally Posted by mithrilG60

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.

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

[Scothew]

Originally Posted by mithrilG60

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.

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.

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




Shot with the 18-55 on a D40 (by the gf)

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

[Chemyst]

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

[ir13]

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.

[the nub]

Originally Posted by ir13

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.

I agree 100%.

[Tenor CS]

Originally Posted by Chemyst

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

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.

Originally Posted by Chemyst

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

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

[BigAl_SC]

Originally Posted by Chemyst

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

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...

[King James]

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 )

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.

[Tazziedevil]

Originally Posted by King James

I'm a canon guy.



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

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.

[Blueface]

Originally Posted by Tazziedevil

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.

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.

[Blueface]

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