[navin_bhp]

Originally Posted by badri

That said, the 400 is an awesome lens. I mostly use it with high shutter speed (1/800 and above). My 7D is not good above ISO 800 and it is a constraint to shoot high shutter speeds in low light. Newer cameras (like 80D) should fare much better. Here are some pics with the 400 (all hand held).

Agreed. The lens is pretty much useless in low light conditions when I owned it(6 yrs ago). I'm very interested to see how it performs in recent cameras like 5D3,1Dx's and 7D2 where the ISO performance is way better. The AF was lightning fast on a 1D mark IIN. Since it was primarily a birding lens I never used it on a monopod or tripod. It's light weight and can be carried around all day. I've managed to take some decent shots hand held. All of these were shot with the 1D2 under 500 ISO.

[Aroy]

Here is my take on different needs

1. Landscapes with wide angle lenses will definitely benefit with an FX sensor. For example a 24mm on FX body has the same FOV as a 16mm on DX. There are plenty of really good 24mm available at reasonable price compared to 16mm of comparable quality.

2. Wide dynamic range as in forests with sunlight filtering through leaves or a picnic shot. Here the wide dynamic range of FX shot in RAW has an edge over DX sensor. You can pull out a lot of images from shadows which is better in FX compared to DX and practically impossible with P&S or bridge cameras shooting JPEG.

3. Birds and small objects, where the images is so small that it cannot fill the full width of an FX sensor. In such cases a DX sensor has an advantage as for the same MP - 24 you have 6000 pixels in 36mm for FX and 24mm for DX. That means that you will need a shorter lense to fill up the sensor in DX than in FX.

4. Low light including indoor shooting without flash requires a very good high ISO capability. At present FX sensors lead.

5. Sports and action requires high FPS, fast AF and deep buffer to capture the moment, and at present only the flagship models from Canon and Nikon satisfy that.

So ultimately what should one buy?

Well for casual photography both indoors and outdoors I find that my three year old D3300 with the kit 18-55 augmented by 35mm f1.8 DX does the job 90% of the time. Where if fails is in reach and for that all I need is a longer lens. So if you are starting with DSLR photography, just get the latest bottom-of-the-line body with a kit lens and fire away immediately. Learn how to process RAW images and you will well ahead of most. Add extra lenses only after a few months of image taking as that is when you will home in to what you really lack (rather than what you want) and keep augmenting the equipment with time.

[sgiitk]

@ARoy; I dispensed with the 18-55 and got an 18-140 instead. Excellent all round lens. I supplemented it with a 35mm for compact work.

[nilanjanray]

Lovely bird shots, M35 and Navin. Artistic.

[--gKrish--]

Hi,
My friend is in a dilemma to select a dslr. He has shortlisted the following :-Nikon D7200, Nikon D5600, Canon 80d, and Canon 77d. Which among these is the better.

[a4anurag]

Hi guys, any honest feedback on Nikon D3400 with 18-55mm lens?

I am looking to get it in a day or two as a gift. Getting it at 29K from Amazon.

Total noob and beginner with DSLR's hence. Was convincing myself for a D5300 but did that to be on the higher side of budget plus would be a waste for a total beginner.

Please do let me know your thoughts. Thanks in advance.

[sgiitk]

@a4anurag; 3400 is an APS C format camera without some of the bells and whistles. All Nikon family cameras are excellent performers. APS-C means that to compare the angle of view with a normal 35mm camera (24x36 format) you need to multiply the lens size by 1.52 for equivalence.

Since you are getting it as a gift you do not have many options. Otherwise I would have recommended an 18-140 lens instead. You may soon have to go in for a longer lens, since 55mm with the 1.52 factor is equivalent to a 85mm or so of normal optics (for 35mm). Remember 85mm is considered as optimal for portraiture. Make sure you get a decent SD card (both capacity and speed) for storage. Otherwise as it fills up images take too long to ve saved. I for one prefer to use the highest resolution for saving, and then do my cropping etc. afterwards. If you have saved an image at resolution a and then later you feel you need a higher resolution, then there is nothing you can do.

Welcome to the world of SLR owners and enjoy it. One guru, though he shows up only occasionally is Durango Dude.

[Aroy]

Originally Posted by a4anurag

Hi guys, any honest feedback on Nikon D3400 with 18-55mm lens?

I am looking to get it in a day or two as a gift. Getting it at 29K from Amazon.

Total noob and beginner with DSLR's hence. Was convincing myself for a D5300 but did that to be on the higher side of budget plus would be a waste for a total beginner.

Please do let me know your thoughts. Thanks in advance.

In my opinion the D3300 is a better camera as it has higher power flash and longer lasting battery. The only thing it does not have is wireless connectivity, which I feel is of secondary importance to most of us.

D3300 with 18-55 and 70-300 lens bundle is the way to go.
http://www.amazon.in/Nikon-D3300-3-5...keywords=d3300

Desist from buying inexpensive tripods as they are flimsy.

Download Nikon Capture NX-D from Nikon site and from day one shoot RAW and process it in NX-D. That will enable you to take full advantage of the Dynamic Range of the D3300 sensor.

[navin_bhp]

Originally Posted by navin_bhp

I actually have the 7D and 7D2 along with Sigma 150-600mm. Can post some test shots this weekend just for kicks. I live in Bellevue, WA now and the weather is not that favorable to shoot birds last few days.

Managed a trip to the local zoo in the evening so here's some pics taken with 7D and Sigma 150-600 C lens. Lighting was not great so used a little high iso. Overall I think its a great value for money setup. If bought used this is a great 1000$ setup.

@ 600mm ƒ/6.3 Shutter 1/40 ISO 1600



@ 546mm ƒ/6.3 Shutter 1/40 ISO 1600



@ 600mm ƒ/6.3 Shutter 1/125 ISO 1000

[a4anurag]

Guys, received my gift on the 8th. Happy to have my first DSLR in hand.





Lots and lots to learn from all of you! Glued to this thread.

Still reading the manual page by page.

Two images clicked

[jacs]

Originally Posted by jacs

My 1000D started showing shutter error almost an year back. Canon authorized service repair costs comes to INR 10000 approx for a 5+ year old stuff and went ahead with a new one.

I went for a Nikon 5200D

Need guidance from Nikon users.

I was happy with the output from my Canon 1000D on kit lens, even straight from cam. After moving to Nikon, I am pissed off with the output from kit lens. Mostly spongy images not recoverable even if tried to correct sharpness when it grains heavily. Output while using my Sigma super tele is satisfactory and hence doubt my settings for portraits, group photo etc

I generally shoot in Aperture priority mode and only fiddle with ISO or WB or Focal point settings. Is there something else I should fine-tune in Nikon to get better output? Or the 18-55 VR lens is not useful at all?

[i20ian]

Originally Posted by navin_bhp

Lighting was not great so used a little high iso.

I've read from a few websites that to get good pictures in low lighting one needs to use low f value, shutter speed equal to or above the focal length being used, say while shooting at 250mm, 1/250 or more and higher ISO.
This is what I understood. Will this work to get better pictures. I am using an APS-C camera.
Need some tips and advice on this pic here.



Shot at f/6, 250mm, 1/40, ISO 200. Shooting in aperture priority mode.
The sun had set and it was a cloudy evening. Kindly give tips to improve image quality.

[swami69]

Originally Posted by jacs

Need guidance from Nikon users.

I was happy with the output from my Canon 1000D on kit lens, even straight from cam. After moving to Nikon, I am pissed off with the output from kit lens. Mostly spongy images not recoverable even if tried to correct sharpness when it grains heavily. Output while using my Sigma super tele is satisfactory and hence doubt my settings for portraits, group photo etc

I generally shoot in Aperture priority mode and only fiddle with ISO or WB or Focal point settings. Is there something else I should fine-tune in Nikon to get better output? Or the 18-55 VR lens is not useful at all?

Since you are talking about portraits and group photo, i would suggest AF-S (single point) and select the Centre focus point in the grid. Use the lowest f point possible on your lens to get the out of focus background (bokeh) nice and smooth. For group photos, I would suggest a higher f point like f8 to control the depth of field and sharpness. I have heard this 18-55VR is a descent kit lens and it should give you good photos. From your dissatisfaction levels, I could probably think that your copy of the lens is bad or something like that. I am not advising on your technique because your other lenses seems to be allright. Going for a little higher ISO is OK to have a good fast shutter speed to avoid camera shake. Try all these and if it is still bad, then check the lens. I think D5200 does not have AF FINE TUNE, else I would have suggested to tune your lens.

Good luck !

Swami

[swami69]

Originally Posted by i20ian

I've read from a few websites that to get good pictures in low lighting one needs to use low f value, shutter speed equal to or above the focal length being used, say while shooting at 250mm, 1/250 or more and higher ISO.
This is what I understood. Will this work to get better pictures. I am using an APS-C camera.
Need some tips and advice on this pic here.

Shot at f/6, 250mm, 1/40, ISO 200. Shooting in aperture priority mode.
The sun had set and it was a cloudy evening. Kindly give tips to improve image quality.

Yes, lower f stop (aperture wide open) will let more light in. Similarly higher the ISO, more light will be captured. So, considering the situation here, increasing the ISO to even 800 would be better as many new cameras are wonderful at this ISO as well, no issues. Also, if i see this photo, your shutter speed is too low 1/40 as these are active birds which keeps shaking their head, feathers etc., so , you need atleast 1/200 or more to freeze the action and at the same time let more light in. So, for this scenario, lowest F stop, ISO 800 and shutter speed of 1/200 would give you a much better picture in my opinion. Also, as part of bird photography, try and isolate one subject and focus on it so that it creates and interest for the viewer. Group photos of birds are fine as long as the situation allows them to be composed nicely and not too distributed and clattered. Just an opinion.

Swami

[Rehaan]

Originally Posted by i20ian

I've read from a few websites

Have you done enough reading / understanding about how Aperture, Shutter speed & ISO affect the exposure? And how each one has trade-offs?

I think you might need to play with this more to understand it completely...

Originally Posted by i20ian

I've read from a few websites that to get good pictures in low lighting one needs to use low f value, shutter speed equal to or above the focal length being used, say while shooting at 250mm, 1/250 or more and higher ISO.

Let me break down what you've said above:

Wide aperture (low f value):
+ Lets in more light
+ Adds "depth of field" effect (especially for close subjects)
- You'll only have a small part of your image in perfect focus

Shutter speed:
+ Longer shutter = more light
- Longer shutter = more chance of shake if not using a tripod (usually 1/125 or 1/60 and slower)

Higher ISO:
+ Greater light sensitivity for the sensor
- More visible noise (especially beyond a point - eg. ISO 800 - depending on the camera)

Originally Posted by i20ian

Shot at f/6, 250mm, 1/40, ISO 200.

The pic in terms of image quality is quite decent, though you might be lucky to have got a shake-free pic at 1/40, especially @ 250mm. (The longer the focal length, the more a tiny shake effects the picture).