Buying my first DSLR – Any Nikon D3100/3200 Users?
- Thread starter wilbo
- Start date
Love the detail in the Giraffe's eye lashes. Depth of field must only be a few cm's. 
Photo's look great Tom
Maybe a lens for me to consider oen day.
One Question, i see you are shoting in different ISO's the majority of the time, i usually leave it in ISO 200 for most daytime shots, is this the right thing to do? Whey are you changing yours? Do you ever use Auto ISO?
Thanks
Ash
Maybe a lens for me to consider oen day.
One Question, i see you are shoting in different ISO's the majority of the time, i usually leave it in ISO 200 for most daytime shots, is this the right thing to do? Whey are you changing yours? Do you ever use Auto ISO?
Thanks
Ash
Thanks Hopz
Well its such a good price its a no brainer for me but its not really soothing you can just put in the bag lol its a bit ott.
I use auto ISO all the time, one less thing to worry about. I set it from 100-6400 and leave it be. The quality is so good all the way to 3200 that I don't worry about it like I used to. As you can see in the rhino pic its 2500iso, that would have been unusable 5 years ago. Now it looks like 800 amazing. Also if your shooting in good light using higher ISO, it doesn't show too much quality degradation. Problems arise when your shooting high and theres not a lot of light noise is much more apparent.
You do loose a bit of colour and obviously increases the noise, but for wildlife, you have to shoot up high sort of around 800-2000 because of A, the length of the lens, at 600 you have to be shooting at 1/600th or higher. It was also my first time out with the lens so I wanted to be cautious and B, the animal movement. Sheep for example grind their teeth when they eat grass and that vibrates the whole head and torso so if you try shooting at 1/100th which might sound fine if you zoom to 100% you'll find its not tack sharp, but a bit blurry. All animal have these traits and I've learned these lessons hard in the past. They also move quickly and unpredictably so shooting fast means you will be ready too.
Another reason its high is because I'm shooting at F8 because on full frame DOF is smaller than on a crop camera, this lens is also slow with a smallest aperture of F6.3 and a lot of the time these animals have dark fur so its upping the ISO to balance the exposure. ISO is the third part of the exposure triangle along with the aperture and shutter speed. I was shooting manual at F8 and 1/1000th so the only way to change the exposure is to change the ISO.
If you also look I was changing the shutter speed up and down too as some of the animals were pretty static as you do really want to shoot lower down in the ISO for the best quality but as I probably won't use these and was more a lens test I wasn't overly fussed. I do tend to shoot like this now anyway but I usually have much faster glass so the ISO is much lower. ISO is so good on these newer cameras i don't think its that much of a problem.
Well its such a good price its a no brainer for me but its not really soothing you can just put in the bag lol its a bit ott.
I use auto ISO all the time, one less thing to worry about. I set it from 100-6400 and leave it be. The quality is so good all the way to 3200 that I don't worry about it like I used to. As you can see in the rhino pic its 2500iso, that would have been unusable 5 years ago. Now it looks like 800 amazing. Also if your shooting in good light using higher ISO, it doesn't show too much quality degradation. Problems arise when your shooting high and theres not a lot of light noise is much more apparent.
You do loose a bit of colour and obviously increases the noise, but for wildlife, you have to shoot up high sort of around 800-2000 because of A, the length of the lens, at 600 you have to be shooting at 1/600th or higher. It was also my first time out with the lens so I wanted to be cautious and B, the animal movement. Sheep for example grind their teeth when they eat grass and that vibrates the whole head and torso so if you try shooting at 1/100th which might sound fine if you zoom to 100% you'll find its not tack sharp, but a bit blurry. All animal have these traits and I've learned these lessons hard in the past. They also move quickly and unpredictably so shooting fast means you will be ready too.
Another reason its high is because I'm shooting at F8 because on full frame DOF is smaller than on a crop camera, this lens is also slow with a smallest aperture of F6.3 and a lot of the time these animals have dark fur so its upping the ISO to balance the exposure. ISO is the third part of the exposure triangle along with the aperture and shutter speed. I was shooting manual at F8 and 1/1000th so the only way to change the exposure is to change the ISO.
If you also look I was changing the shutter speed up and down too as some of the animals were pretty static as you do really want to shoot lower down in the ISO for the best quality but as I probably won't use these and was more a lens test I wasn't overly fussed. I do tend to shoot like this now anyway but I usually have much faster glass so the ISO is much lower. ISO is so good on these newer cameras i don't think its that much of a problem.
danmiddle2
Active member
The only significant feature lacking (I believe) on the D3x00 is the lack of bracketing, so if you want to bracket the exposure of your shots, you have to do it manually. Ken Rockwell's site is a great resource for camera reviews.
In terms of the mirrorless vs DSLR debate; I have a Nikon D600, a D7000 (both DSLRs) and I have a Sony NEX 7 and NEX 5 (both mirrorless) - albeit the '5' is converted to shoot in infrared. I tend to use my NEX-7 as my walk about camera and the DSLRs for everything else.
Aside from the limitations in available lenses, the only real technical drawbacks with mirrorless are firstly, the viewfinder. For example; if you want to do a panning shot of a moving car to create a 'blurred' background, whilst keeping the car in focus... you really need an optical viewfinder. Secondly, the range of flashes are very limited compared to what you can get on DSLR's.
The Nikon lighting system for their DSLR's pretty much set the benchmark for others to follow... and is still superb.
The only other thing to consider is that a lot of the settings on mirrorless camera are buried in a menu system, and may be a little less accessible.
In terms of the mirrorless vs DSLR debate; I have a Nikon D600, a D7000 (both DSLRs) and I have a Sony NEX 7 and NEX 5 (both mirrorless) - albeit the '5' is converted to shoot in infrared. I tend to use my NEX-7 as my walk about camera and the DSLRs for everything else.
Aside from the limitations in available lenses, the only real technical drawbacks with mirrorless are firstly, the viewfinder. For example; if you want to do a panning shot of a moving car to create a 'blurred' background, whilst keeping the car in focus... you really need an optical viewfinder. Secondly, the range of flashes are very limited compared to what you can get on DSLR's.
The Nikon lighting system for their DSLR's pretty much set the benchmark for others to follow... and is still superb.
The only other thing to consider is that a lot of the settings on mirrorless camera are buried in a menu system, and may be a little less accessible.
Tracking is an inherent problem with mirrorless although the new A7RII is meant to be better. For any moving subject a DSLR will still destroy mirrorless but for most other things there aren't great drawbacks apart from what you've said.
I would take what Ken Rockwell says with a pinch of salt tbh he's tends to change his allegiance when money is waved in front of him. thedigitalpicture is a better resource. KR is a bit of a joke in the camera community.
I would take what Ken Rockwell says with a pinch of salt tbh he's tends to change his allegiance when money is waved in front of him. thedigitalpicture is a better resource. KR is a bit of a joke in the camera community.
Tom
I think im going to get the Canon 24-105 F4 or the Canon 24-70 F4 new from digital rev.
I used to just use Hoya UV filters but i have been reading about Polarising filters instead and they are meant to be good.
What do you use/reccomend? Any brands i should choose? Best place to buy?
Thanks
Ash
I think im going to get the Canon 24-105 F4 or the Canon 24-70 F4 new from digital rev.
I used to just use Hoya UV filters but i have been reading about Polarising filters instead and they are meant to be good.
What do you use/reccomend? Any brands i should choose? Best place to buy?
Thanks
Ash
Both good choices, saving a bit of money on a white box 24-105mm would be my choice as the 24-70 isn't worlds apart and is more expensive with a lot less range.
In the last post I wrote a bit about polarisers. They reduce the light into the lens but increase saturation and reduce reflections so are really useful but not something to keep on the lens all the time. But I always keep one on me.
UV filters are a bit of a mixed bag. Digital cameras negate the reason to use a UV filter as in the film days UV haze was a big issue its not now. UV filters are generally used to protect the lens, stops the lens element from getting scratched and its easier to clean than the lens element itself. It also finishes canons 'weather sealing' as when you zoom a lens it sucks air through the tiny surround in the front of the lens element so a filter stops that, they can be useful in that respect. Problems.. sometimes they can introduce more chromatic aberration, reduce sharpness and if your buying a really expensive lens why put a cheapish piece of glass in front of it?
Also the lens has a lens hood which pretty much stops anything hitting the lens element unless its small and long. Its a mixed bag and personal preference.
I use B+W UV filters which are meant to be on the better side. Most of my lenses are 77mm I used to keep them on all the time and now but now I usually only put them on if I'm going into a situation where the lens may be damaged. So on the beach/desert, when it rains to 'seal' the lens etc. I found with the high end filters the image quality isn't affected but I found it introduced much more chromatic aberration in high contrast situations like a subject being backlit and my style of wedding shooting is just that so I found it very annoying and the extra CA was hard to remove in post. My 24-70mm F2.8 MKI was most effected, a little on my 24-105mm and not a lot in the 70-200mm.
Put it this way I took my 24-105mm, 16-35mm and 70-300mm into some pretty harsh environments like the Amazon with ridiculous down pores of rain, atacama desert, down to -30 and up to +40 deg C and every lens is fine the 24-105 got a tiny spec of dust and that it the rest weren't affected at all.
There has been a big discussion recently after this video was made
[youtube]P0CLPTd6Bds[/youtube]
This thread talks about the above points in more detail
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=27548.0
In my opinion I do keep them on my lenses every once and a while but I don't mind not having them on. They are useful to protect but the lenses are so well made and strong the UV filters aren't as strong if they break the glass can scratch the lens element too…
I bought all of mine from amazon or DREV.
Personal thing really.
In the last post I wrote a bit about polarisers. They reduce the light into the lens but increase saturation and reduce reflections so are really useful but not something to keep on the lens all the time. But I always keep one on me.
UV filters are a bit of a mixed bag. Digital cameras negate the reason to use a UV filter as in the film days UV haze was a big issue its not now. UV filters are generally used to protect the lens, stops the lens element from getting scratched and its easier to clean than the lens element itself. It also finishes canons 'weather sealing' as when you zoom a lens it sucks air through the tiny surround in the front of the lens element so a filter stops that, they can be useful in that respect. Problems.. sometimes they can introduce more chromatic aberration, reduce sharpness and if your buying a really expensive lens why put a cheapish piece of glass in front of it?
Also the lens has a lens hood which pretty much stops anything hitting the lens element unless its small and long. Its a mixed bag and personal preference.
I use B+W UV filters which are meant to be on the better side. Most of my lenses are 77mm I used to keep them on all the time and now but now I usually only put them on if I'm going into a situation where the lens may be damaged. So on the beach/desert, when it rains to 'seal' the lens etc. I found with the high end filters the image quality isn't affected but I found it introduced much more chromatic aberration in high contrast situations like a subject being backlit and my style of wedding shooting is just that so I found it very annoying and the extra CA was hard to remove in post. My 24-70mm F2.8 MKI was most effected, a little on my 24-105mm and not a lot in the 70-200mm.
Put it this way I took my 24-105mm, 16-35mm and 70-300mm into some pretty harsh environments like the Amazon with ridiculous down pores of rain, atacama desert, down to -30 and up to +40 deg C and every lens is fine the 24-105 got a tiny spec of dust and that it the rest weren't affected at all.
There has been a big discussion recently after this video was made
[youtube]P0CLPTd6Bds[/youtube]
This thread talks about the above points in more detail
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=27548.0
In my opinion I do keep them on my lenses every once and a while but I don't mind not having them on. They are useful to protect but the lenses are so well made and strong the UV filters aren't as strong if they break the glass can scratch the lens element too…
I bought all of mine from amazon or DREV.
Personal thing really.
Thanks for you help Tom
Ordered a 24-105 F4 L white box in the end.
Ill sell my 28-135 to get some of my money back hopefully, im looking foward to taking some shoots and playing about witht he settings when it arrives.
Ill go for a B&W UV Filter and ill look at how much the Polarising filters are too so i have a few options.
Thanks for all of your help and advice.
Im going to start saving for a 70-300mm L Series next after your suggestion.
Ordered a 24-105 F4 L white box in the end.
Ill sell my 28-135 to get some of my money back hopefully, im looking foward to taking some shoots and playing about witht he settings when it arrives.
Ill go for a B&W UV Filter and ill look at how much the Polarising filters are too so i have a few options.
Thanks for all of your help and advice.
Im going to start saving for a 70-300mm L Series next after your suggestion.
Hope you dont mind me asking a related question but saw the Canon Eos 1200D with EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 III Lens Kit on special for just under £200 I read some reviews which looked decent so went for it but after reading some of the posts here wondering if I should have put a bit more money in and gone for something a bit better. This is literally a business expense and wont be used to take any fancy action shots and certainly nothing of the caliber of photos I have seen here, it will only be used on a tripod in our showroom to take photos of furniture and as we currently using a Sony compact that is a few years old but wanted something with better colour reproduction and less noise so hoping I went for the right thing,