• Welcome to the Two Wheeled Texans community! Feel free to hang out and lurk as long as you like. However, we would like to encourage you to register so that you can join the community and use the numerous features on the site. After registering, don't forget to post up an introduction!

What to Buy - DSLR

Forums New posts
tshelfer

tshelfer

0
Joined
Sep 4, 2009
Messages
13,478
Reaction score
2,847
Location
Centennial, CO
First Name
Tim
Last Name
Shelfer
I'm posing a few questions here for my daughter. Here's some background. I'm an old school photographer; I just don't keep up with technology, so my knowledge of DSLRs is pretty rudimentary.

My daughter is shooting with an ancient Nikon D50 (6.2 MP) and a pair of Quantaray (Ritz Camera store brand) lenses. She has a good eye for composition, but didn't learn photography the old fashioned way, so doesn't venture much beyond auto settings on her camera. Anyway, she's beginning to notice the difference in crispness in her pictures, and those of a couple of friends who are budding semi-pros. And she's asking me about cameras and options. So I'm going to pose a few questions to you guys for opinions - and I know there are a few out there.

1) To jump from a D50 to a D3000 would be a jump from 6.2 to 10 MP. That'll certainly crisp up the pictures. What other advantages would she get?
2) Other than the slight additional megapix bump, is there any significant advantage in going to a D5000 instead of a D3000?
3) Given the limited budget, which do you think would be the better upgrade - to invest in a D3000 or D5000 body, or to keep the D50 and upgrade from store brand to Nikon G-series lenses?

Your opinions would be appreciated. And be kind - she's reading whatever you write.
 
There's nothing 'wrong' with the D50. Great cameras.
Biggest things you'll pick up with the newer cams are
Better ISO readings (low-light performance)
Higher resolution (not as critical as the ads claim it to be)
Better AutoFocus

If I were in her shoes, I'd send the money on lens(es) instead of the body.


If you want to read the details, here's the Digital Photography Review of each camera:
D50 Specs: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond50/2
D3000 Specs: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond3000/2
D5000 Specs: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond5000/2
 
I agree with upgrading the glass.

And make sure that the current lenses are clean. Nothing destroys crispness like a smudge on the lens. Arlington camera has some good lens cleaning supplies.

Also, if she would like to try out a couple of Nikon zoom lenses, I have the D70 kit lens, 18-70mm, and I really like the 55-200mm zoom. They are not as sharp (or as fast) as a fixed focal length lens, but I like the flexibility that a zoom brings. She is welcome to borrow them if that will help.

I also have the D90 kit lens - 18-105mm zoom but it usually stays on my D70... :zen:
 
Thanks, Chuck. I have pretty much the same lenses - the Nikon 18-55 and the 55-200, and will be lending them to her for a trip to Vegas tomorrow.

One of her complaints is trying to take low-light pictures. Part of that is simply not understanding how apertures and shutter speeds work together. But part of it, I think, is getting muddy pictures. Can you expand a bit on the ISO differences between D50 and the newer models?

By the way, I shoot with a D60 and love it!
 
At this point in her development, spend the money on glass - and 'fast' glass at that. Reason is two-fold. First, she'll notice an immediate improvement in the quality/crispness and color saturation with glass. And second, faster glass will give her a bit better low light performance by probably a stop at minimum. Not that she understands that yet, but that's what those 'in the know' understand.

Then get her some basic instruction on 'how' the camera works and only then start looking at a body upgrade if you think it's necessary. This way, she gets the quality glass which is transportable across bodys, learns how to use the various modes and if she's confident, then can move up.


As for the ISO capabilities, the technology is growing so rapidly even my D700 is eclipsed by the D800. But in a nutshell, the increased ISO performance capabilities of newer bodies is almost exponentially greater with each release. What used to be crazy high ISO settings of say 1600 and all the noise (film version of grain), on my D700 I have zero concern about using 1600 or higher to get a really good image. So the high ISO only really comes into play if she's wanting to dusk/dark/night shooting or low light where there's movement. Even the D50 at say 800ISO bangs out awesome images, but the shutter speed is considerably longer and/or aperture wide open.

As an example, I shot this at 5000ISO a few days ago. It's a pretty crisp image with little detectable noise. A good solid, usable image at 5K. That would be a bit tough on an older body.
1/40th
f/3.5
ISO 5000
DSC8622-100-XL.jpg
 
That's good info, Scott. Thanks. We were talking this morning about the benefits of a good 1.8 lens when shooting in low light.

As for ISO, I think I've just learned something. My D60 shoots great at 800, but when I bump it to 1600, it goes off a cliff. Nice to know that my next camera body - whenever that may be - will do well at least to 1600.

I just got my G-series lenses out and cleaned them up for her. We'll see how the lights of the Vegas strip look through Nikon glass.

All good info, fellows. Thanks.
 
Well fellows, I think the decision's been made. I explained to her about ISO and the improvements - on the newer cameras - on higher ISOs being more resistant to all that noise and discoloration. That sold her on the D3000.

There's actually a certain logic to it. Until she's ready for the Next Big Purchase, she knows exactly where she can borrow a pair of Nikon G-series lenses, right? ;-)
 
Just show her the above pic shot at 5000. That'll convince her pretty quickly that newer bodys with improved ISO performance work well in low light. Heck, go find Duke's ISO 25,600 shots. :eek2:


.
 
I used to think I was hot stuff when I took my Tri-X to the photo lab and "pushed" it to 800 ASA in the developing tank (We'd never heard of ISO back then).
 
Nice pic Scott. Where is that ? I think I know but the tables are throwing me off.
 
Ditto on that picture. I haven't done much night photography in some years. I need to get back into that. Somewhere from the 70s, I have this cool picture of a nighttime tractor pull at a county fair, with flames bellowing out of the stacks. I need to get back to my slide conversion project....
 
Scott, your pic above, is that with no noise reduction in post? If so, that's pretty amazing. It looks like it was shot at ISO 200. :shock:

Is there a particular reason your daughter is looking at the D3000 over the 3100 or even the new 3200. Price? Even between the 3000 and 3200 there has been ISO improvement.
 
And whichever camera you get, take a serious look at the 35mm and 50mm 1.8's available from Nikon. There aren't two better lenses on the market for that price range. I have one lens (the 35mm) and won't be getting another any time soon.
 
klb1122 said:
Scott, your pic above, is that with no noise reduction in post? If so, that's pretty amazing. It looks like it was shot at ISO 200. :shock:
Click to expand...

Yes, a bit of LR2.2 NR done.

Here is the untouched (shot RAW, converted to .jpg only) version:
i-hVn9ztV-XL.jpg


Compared to the final version:
DSC8622-100-XL.jpg



.
 
DFW_Warrior said:
And whichever camera you get, take a serious look at the 35mm and 50mm 1.8's available from Nikon. There aren't two better lenses on the market for that price range. I have one lens (the 35mm) and won't be getting another any time soon.
Click to expand...

I have an old Nikon 1.8 and it's a fantastic lens. Unfortunately, the autofocus isn't compatible with DSLRs, so my daughter won't be using it. I trot it out from time to time, and am always impressed at the optics. Plus, it's such a pleasure to occasionally use something that will go below F4.
 
tshelfer said:
I have an old Nikon 1.8 and it's a fantastic lens. Unfortunately, the autofocus isn't compatible with DSLRs, so my daughter won't be using it. I trot it out from time to time, and am always impressed at the optics. Plus, it's such a pleasure to occasionally use something that will go below F4.
Click to expand...

For $199 you get the newer version that will work on the compact bodies and looks darn good.:trust:
 
Just for fun, we got out the camera and in a dark corner of the living room, took these two shots. Both were JPEG, and resized from within the camera. Lightroom has never even seen them. And I'm sorry for the photos being a tad soft. We both just got of the bikes, and I picked up the camera a few minutes later to snap them. Usually I'm not as shaky at 1/8th. But the same lighting, same everything for both shots. The only difference was the ISO. And I have a "cheap" Nikon that doesn't do as well with higher ISO ratings.

1/8th, f1.8 @ ISO100
SSC_0789.jpg


1/8th, f1.8 @ ISO6400
SSC_0790.jpg
 
I think I paid $75 for mine. Of course, that was in a different century......
 
Sorry if I am making you more difficult to choose.
Now, at each range of DSLR, most of the DSLR bodies they have quite the same technology, function and may be cost as well.
Someone get used with the control of Nikon then don't want to take time to learn more about Canon's OSD.

Totally agree with someone talking about lens investment.

So just need to buy a DSLR body which you think it's about middle of the market, its function is okay to you, etc...
Canon and Nikon develop the technick of reducing vibration on their lens.
With Canon, it's IS (Image Stabilization) and VR (Vibration Reduction) on Nikon.
Problem here is that we may not be able to find the different of IS and non-IS as we are not professional photographer, we do not have to play with difficult shooting situation, mostly, we just take photos with the 18-55mm Lens kit, or some Fix lens for potrait (35mm or 50mm, etc...). That why the lens with or without IS make no benefit to the users, but the manufacturers.
The IS lens pretty much more expensive than the non-IS lens.
Why you have to pay too much money for the thing you may not gain, or you may not realize what you will gain...!?

All above is to tell why I choose Sony after playing with both Nikon and Canon for a little while.
Sony also has the teknic to reduce vibration, but they develop it into the Camera body, not the lens. It 's called "Steadyshot INSIDE".
So, the Sony lens are built without IS or VR like Canon or Nikon. That 's why Sony lens are cheaper than others.
Further more, Sony bought Minolta, thus, you can easily buy cheap and old Minolta lens with super quality. And if your skill is good enough, money is no issue, you can move to Carl-Zeiss lens. I don't think I have to say anything more about CZ lens.

If you like the big Sony camera body, you can try A390, A580... etc...
If you like the smaller body, you can try the mirrorless type, i.e. A37, A57...
(Or compact body, it's Nex.)
I am having with me A37 as I usually use to travel with my bike, so I need a small DSLR. That's good for me now.
All above is just IMO.
 
Thanks, VH. You're not making it difficult for me to choose at all. My daughter asks me these questions, then she does what she wants. That's how it's supposed to work, right? :shrug:
 
Hahah... As you said your daughter is reading what we post here so I wrote for her.... to read, to choose...
Haha :rofl:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top