Team-BHP (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/)

-   Gadgets, Computers & Software (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/gadgets-computers-software/)

-   -   The DSLR Thread (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/gadgets-computers-software/11582-dslr-thread-723.html)

:Shockked: Lens prices seem to have shot through the roof in the past 1 year! When I was using this lens with my D90 (it was the kit lens), I hardly used it as I was mostly using a 50mm 1.8D prime or a 24-85 f2.8-4D. I found the results with these two lenses much better than the 18-105.
I would 100% recommend that you get a Prime first, as the results with the prime are simply unbeatable. You could get the 35mm 1.8G, which will work on your D5100, or the 50mm 1.8G. Actually the 35mm 1.8G is the better choice for a DX camera as it gives the correct focal length for good portrait pics and family photography due to the crop factor.

Regards,
Behemoth

Hi Mobike008,

Apologies for the back to back post, I just missed the edit limit.
I found a much better price (Rs 805 , incl. free shipping) for the 16Gb card that you are getting and thought that it may be useful for you and others too who are looking for this card:
http://smartshoppers.in/product/sand...class-10-card/

I have also bought in the past (A Vanguard Tripod) from Smartshoppers and they are quite decent in their service.

Regards,
Behemoth

Go that extra mile and buy the D3100

That's what i am reading everywhere that prime lens are unbeatable. So thats why that's my first purchase priority and next is to get rid of the 18-55mm and get the 18-105mm VR ( main reason quality will be same as kit lens and also has a VR)

Already decided on 35mm 1.8G:)


Awesome. Thanks for the look-out:thumbs up


Your absolutely right here.

Well, thats hardly an overlap there (35mm) for the telephoto. Besides, the 70-300 Tamaron is a piece of junk as soon as it becomes dark. Its good only in strong daylight

I still plan to get the following

35mm
18-105mm VR ( exchanging 18-55mm VR)
70-300mm Tamaron ( Already have. Decent for daylight telephotography)

Depends what your long term plan is. If one DSLR + kit lens (or maybe add a consumer telephoto like 55-200 or 55-300 ) is all you'll ever buy, then the D3100 sensor is better and it's kit lens is considered better. But if you have any long term aspirations for body/lens upgrades, then chart your usage carefully. Earlier Canon lenses were generally cheaper than Nikon, not anymore.

35 f1.8 would be good, but if you do significant low light shooting the 18-105 isn't very handy, at 50mm it's already at f/5 - drops aperture very fast , that's my main grouse with it, hence thinking of a fast 17-50 or 2 fast cheap primes , something like 20mm and 35mm (have 50 f/1.8D).

I bought a used Nikon D3100, which is an upgrade from Panasonic FZ28, somewhere around June 2011. It has been serving me very well. Never felt that I need an upgrade while using FZ28, but after getting used to D3100, I rarely prefer FZ28 unless its some quick shots.

Going by that logic, somewhere it itches me to go for another camera.....either Nikon D5100 or a sparingly used Nikon D300. [i.e looking for a camera which can make an average guy good :) ]

pls suggest

Edit:

1. Include Nikon D90 as well
2. If none offer anything extra for a amateur, I can even drop this upgrade idea

Well, your just like me. I am also an amateur hobbyist and would recommend building a lens range rather than upgrading the body so early ( just a year since you bought your first DSLR). However, buy lens keeping in mind your upgrade plans for future.

Btw, for benefit of all. I came across this awesome DEAL OFFER

http://www.timtara.com/diwalifest.php

Imagine if i want to buy an 18-105mm VR priced at 19.3K then I get a discount of 4K. So it will come for 15.3K

I think anyone buying any electronic goods for this diwali should use this offer.

Disclaimer : I too came to know of this website last night so i am no way related to them:D

I do not think it is going extra mile , D3100 is a crippled entry level Camera.
If one has to buy Nikon buying higher models makes more sense in longer run.

Which model do you suggest? We are talking a step above D3100...so pro or high end cameras are out :)

If that is the case, the choice boils down to D5100 in Nikon. And, Canon 550D or 600D ( even better)

Well such decisions can be best arrived at using a requirements matrix similar to GSQR of Indian Army for arms procurement , floating RFP and a decision tree after multiple rounds of trials :uncontrol .

But we need to simplify this procurement process a bit since order is not of size of Army tender and there is no one to receive commissions and kickbacks LOL.

At a very simple level you have 6 choices.

1. Buy D3100 but before you decide check your future needs and check if Nikon G lens lineup is what you will stick to always. If will be comfirtable doing manual focus with other lenses and not crave for fast AF

2. If you want Nikon and new and also point 1 does not cover your needs then wait for some more time , up the budget and buy better model.

3. If point 2 is not acceptible Buy D3100 but be mentally prepared for that upgrade itch and create a sinking fund to upgrade.

4. Open up to buying a used DSLR. You may buy a used D70/D80/D90 as per your budget lurk on online forums to find good deal.

5. Shift to Canon Camp and buy a new.

6. Look at EVIL cameras specialy EPL and Sony NEX.

Choice 5 is best option if you want serious videos and need AF usage in future without upgrade and for every fanatic Nikonian you will also find a fanatic Canonian there is no big difference IMHO.

Choice 6 is best if you want to use good quality old MF lenses form pentax , Nikon , Canon FD , Minolta etc etc but do not want to do birding and wildlife much.

Choice 5 also gives you a lot of flexibility in usage of old MF lenes from Nikon , Pentax , M42 etc but not Canon FD and Minolta MD.

Micro 4/3 or Sony NEX is for you if you want lightweight system and want to keep it simple they are not for you if you need bird photography , wildlife or sports.

Last but not the least above is simplified scenario , create your own requirements matrix and decide with similar line of thinking

Thanks.

BTW, where is the choice 5 :)

Somehow I inclined to Option-4 becase...a deal on D300, 1-1/2 old with just 7k clicks for 40k incl (18-55 lens, battery charger, 16GB Sd card and a bag)

Congratulations!!

Did the coupon code work on zoomin? It worked about a week back, but now when I actually want to place an order the code is not working.

Can anyone confirm this?

One of my big hobbies for many years has been photography. I must have taken literally thousand of photo's, I shoot everything in RAW, but I've never owned a DSLR though!

For the last 10 years I owned a Sony DSC-R1:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/camer...view-12.html#b

I have recently bought myself a new camera; Olympus OMD E5
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusem5

Again, not a DSLR.

There are several reasons i went for the Sony over a DSLR and subsequently went to the Olympus.

For my purpose having a 24-105mm zoom is perfectly adequate. With the Olympus I now also have a 75-300mm zoom. The only other accessories I have for these cameras where UV + polarizing filter, external flash and a very good (heavy) tripod. Also a Cokin filter holder plus 6 filter, ND, grad ND and grad blue. And some extra rechargeable batteries.

it means that all of my photo kit can be packed into a relative small bag. I upgraded to the Olympus because my Sony was beginning to show some sign of wear and tear. The Olympus is much, much smaller and much, much lighter.

The Olympus is also extremely fast focussing, something the Sony wasn't. In addition it has some other useful settings that I would like to start to explore. Each bracketing, multi-exposure etc. Again, features the Sony didn't have or had somewhat limited functionality

Both the Sony and the Olympus have very good specifications. My photographs get printed maximum A3 sizes in albums and or even smaller on my websites. So no matter how much more pixels, or better sensors or whatever is not going to have a visible impact on my pictures. I shoot everything in RAW, so every picture I publish gets a lot of attention and adjustments where necessary.

In addition I also own a little Canon S90 http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons90

Very good, light sensitive lens and it shoots RAW. Ask a professional photograph what compact he has, he's likely to come up with something similar.

Photography for me is about taking pictures and less about kit. Once I decide and buy a camera I will use it for a very long time. Before the digital age, I did own a (Analoge) SLR MinoltaX700 and X300. Whole bunch of lenses etc. For years lugged around many kilograms of photographic equipment around the globe.

i just don't like carrying around so much stuff. So I try to get as much performance I can get out of as little cubic centimeter and ounces I can get. This new Olympus seems to be very good at that!

I would put my money rather towards getting some really good photography and photoshop courses, rather than invest heavily in a DSLR and a whole host of accessories.

So in the end it's probably very much about personal choice and preference and everybody will find/make up their own "facts' to support ones decision.

I do think, these days, photography seems to be very "equipment-centric". Most photo magazines are crammed with endless articles about new pieces of kit. I do believe photography is more about taking pictures. For most of us the truth is that taking better pictures doesn't require a better/different camera. It requires more/better technique and understanding what makes a good, powerful image. How to improve the image with Photoshop etc.

So I spend my money on going to workshops/photography courses, visiting exhibitions and buying books about photography, rather than spend much of my time and money on the hardware.

But again, each to its own. If you enjoy fiddling around with cameras, lenses, reading specifications etc. please do enjoy. Its just a hobby and whatever makes you tick.

Although I'm very pleased with my new Olympus I'm also slightly put off by it. It will take a while to get thoroughly familiar with it. I need to go through it, but it also means that it still doesn't feel as natural as with the camera I've been using for nearly a decade. Just need to get a couple of thousand shots behind me to built that same routine, same familiarity I guess.

Multi bracketing is actually a great way to explore and understand how different my new camera is compared to the old one. For instance, the Olympus being a 4/3 camera, gives a very different depth of field result, compared to the Sony (which is essentially a straightforward 35mm). Aperture also has a big effect on the various filters I use. So again, I need to try endlessly. So glad for digital photography. I can just shoot endless variations at no cost and study/compae them on my PC. Can you imagine having to go through this by printing or by looking at slides!

No matter what, do enjoy your hobby!

Jeroen

Surprise, here's my honest and strong opinion:
No camera can really make an average guy good, or even look good beyond very specific, narrow circumstances. That is downright impossible. The photographer's eye and imagination cannot be substituted by the best of Japan's technology.

If someone were to ask me, I'd put down in bold - 'if you're thinking about improving your photography, gear should always and only follow your imagination like a tail'. It's a different matter that a lot of us love gadgets and seek to satisfy the itch to lay our hands, however inept really, on the best that we can afford, but that's not about photography at all - it's about consumerism. I'm not being condescending when I say that, I'm only pointing out that you should be honest to yourself about your real motivation for an upgrade. Do you want a better camera because you love the better stuff? In that case, others can certainly help you choose by pointing the way to the most bang for the limited buck. On the other hand, do you want a better camera because your primary goal is better pictures? If that's so, I'm afraid you and only you can answer the question about what camera you should upgrade to. And if you are still looking for the answer to that question, you're not yet ready for an upgrade; and you can't make better images even with an expensive upgrade. Just perhaps you don't need to upgrade at this point. Shoot more, try to shoot better with your eye and imagination. See how, where, and how often your equipment fails you in terms of supporting your imagination. You will then have no doubts about what you need to be buying. In all likelihood, you'll find your first dissatisfaction with your lenses. When your lens limitations become crippling, then is the time for you to look into the future and choose an option that will support your future evolution as a photographer.

Right now, I don't think you should upgrade. I might be very wrong, but I'm just sharing my thoughts.

Thanks skandyhere & now I understand the real motive better :)

Got your point & I am not going for any upgrades unless I feel the existing camera is a limitation (D 3100)

Nikon D7000 price has fallen. Used to be $1200, now it is $999.
I have been using the D7000 for a year and a half. I'm very satisfied with it. It is completely worth the extra money over D5100 if you can stretch. Or may be you can wait for the D7100.

The D300 is too old. I wouldn't consider it exactly as an upgrade over the D7000. And forget the D90 too. With the slashed D7000 price, the D90 isn't worth it, although, by itself, the D90 is an amazing camera. Even though I don't own it, I'm a big fan of it.

And yeah, both D7000 and D300 are semi-pro DSLRs. Pro ones are just full frame. :)