Kannan_madhu
Well-Known Member
Real fun of DSLR are the lens options .... congrats ..
Nikon 3100 or Canon1100d
- Thread starter mabhi10
- Start date
ajay124
Well-Known Member
Buying a Nikon DX made simple by Ken Rockwell:
DX Dream Team Lenses
A good DX options for a beginner (like me!) would be:
D3100 (BODY ONLY) 27K
55-200 VR DX 11/12K
35MM 1/8G DX 12/13K
Having happily used the 18-55 for four years my viewpoint since yesterday
is avoid it and go for the 35mm 1/8 instead! Budget could be substantially lowered by buying a used D40 body instead of the D3100. Budget could be substantially enhanced by opting only for the 18-200 lens which retails for close to 48K. The 50mm f 1/8 is another great option with a retail price of barely 6/7K. A great FX (full frame) lens which does not auto focus with the D40/D3100 but would work fine with a manual focus.
Nikon 50mm f/1.8 AF Nikkor
DX Dream Team Lenses
A good DX options for a beginner (like me!) would be:
D3100 (BODY ONLY) 27K
55-200 VR DX 11/12K
35MM 1/8G DX 12/13K
Having happily used the 18-55 for four years my viewpoint since yesterday
is avoid it and go for the 35mm 1/8 instead! Budget could be substantially lowered by buying a used D40 body instead of the D3100. Budget could be substantially enhanced by opting only for the 18-200 lens which retails for close to 48K. The 50mm f 1/8 is another great option with a retail price of barely 6/7K. A great FX (full frame) lens which does not auto focus with the D40/D3100 but would work fine with a manual focus.Nikon 50mm f/1.8 AF Nikkor
ajay124
Well-Known Member
and to think these were the guys that invented the digital camera...
rraghuram
Active Member
@mabhi10: I hope you got your answer by now!
I guess they had become irrelevant now. If we leave aside the sentimentality, nothing of value will be lost. Another big complacent American company fails to adapt and bites the dust.
An analysis by the Economist:
Technological change: The last Kodak moment? | The Economist
ajay124
Well-Known Member
The AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G seems to be a better lens than the AF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II. I took dozens of photos inside and outside my house and compared them with similar photos taken with my earlier lens. The shots taken with the prime lens are crisper and more lifelike. Since I did not have the 'luxury' of zooming in I had to move around a bit more than I used to with the 18-55. I feel I am going to enjoy shooting with a prime lens.
http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/9309/dsc0014qh.jpg
http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/9309/dsc0014qh.jpg
Last edited:
miroflex
Active Member
Hi,
Kodak were one of the biggest manufacturers of sensitive materials. Film users like me will feel the loss.
Regards.
ajay124
Well-Known Member
Hey ajay124..it is almost same as my kit...I have 18-55, 55-200 and 35mm f/1.8
55-200 is very good for portraits. 18-55 is for landscape. 35mm is for indoor and generally a good walk around lens.
I have traded in the 18-55 as I wanted to 'audition' some new lenses. The 55-200 also seems to be a great lens but I am contemplating upgrading the D40 to D90 or D5100. In which case I may return the 55-200 in order to finance the purchase. Later I would either buy the 55-200 or the 50mm F1/8 as my second lens. I know next to nothing about lenses but I believe on a DX sensor with a crop factor of 1.5 the 50mm would have an effective focal length of 75mm. Does it make sense to say goodbye to zoom lens and shoot with only the 50mm and 35mm prime lenses? I am not sure but I am willing to give it a try. For the moment I would definitely like to upgrade to D90/5100 even if it means living with only one lens for a while.
Currently there seems to be a shortage of Nikon cameras. In 2011 their factory in north Japan where the full frame cameras are manufactured was damaged by the tsunami. And their factory in Thailand where the DX cameras are manufactured was damaged in the floods. A double whammy for Nikon. Normal production is supposed to resume in a couple of months.
Yeah..you need to look at the crop factor when you go for the full frame camera. I am happy with D3100 for what it is. My only quirk with that guy is auto bracketing is missing..damn that...But, If i decide to upgrade, that would be lens only. Remember 35mm (aka 50mm) is close to what we see by naked eye. So, picture looks more realistic and it is good for most of the cases. But, you would need a wide angle lens if you are into landscape photography. That gives quite dramatic presentation. 55-200 is good for taking portraits especially when the subject is not nearby and hard to focus accurately using 35mm.
Kannan_madhu
Well-Known Member
You will always have an itch to upgrade the body , after scratching you will find that it worsens the itch . after buying d90 /d5100 you will immediately want to upgrade to more solid and built in focus motor model d7000, and once you acquire the d7000 you may want the d700 full frame . And the fact is that you don't need those cams if you are not a professional or you make extra large prints of your pictures. its better to invest on lens than the body which will go obsolete within months . Get some accessories like a ttl flash and learn to bounce flash for fantastic interior portraits .
Those lens will give you good quality pictures but you will miss a lot of shots primes are not as practical as zooms.
ajay124
Well-Known Member
KM
Your advise is spot on. Reading about new products nudges one on to the ladder of perpetual upgrades. I am happy with the touch, feel and results of the D40. There is no need for an immediate upgrade. For four years I have used it like a point and shoot camera. Only in the last few days have I started playing around with the exposure modes, metering and ISO. It would be far more interesting and productive to explore the possibilities of the D40 than to take a 'short cut' to shooting better pictures by spending another 10-15K on a D5100/D90. Man is mightier than the machine. Ultimately it is your usage of a camera, or a music system, which is important. Not the amount of money you spend on fancy upgrades. I will hang on to both the 35mm and the 55-200mm. Trading in my earlier lens and acquiring these two can be termed as a necessary upgrade. It does not make sense to return the 55-200 in order to upgrade the body
Your advise is spot on. Reading about new products nudges one on to the ladder of perpetual upgrades. I am happy with the touch, feel and results of the D40. There is no need for an immediate upgrade. For four years I have used it like a point and shoot camera. Only in the last few days have I started playing around with the exposure modes, metering and ISO. It would be far more interesting and productive to explore the possibilities of the D40 than to take a 'short cut' to shooting better pictures by spending another 10-15K on a D5100/D90. Man is mightier than the machine. Ultimately it is your usage of a camera, or a music system, which is important. Not the amount of money you spend on fancy upgrades. I will hang on to both the 35mm and the 55-200mm. Trading in my earlier lens and acquiring these two can be termed as a necessary upgrade. It does not make sense to return the 55-200 in order to upgrade the body
ajay124
Well-Known Member
Most professional reviewers seem to prefer the D5100 to D90. D5100 is considered to have a better sensor, screen, picture quality. Plus HD video. But many actual users seem to find the manual controls, built in focus motor, LCD screen on top panel and the penta prism viewfinder of the D90 more attractive. Current price of both D90/D5100 seems to be around 35K for only the body. At this price I would prefer to invest in the more recent technology of D5100. I would not mind buying a lightly used D90 body if I could get one for around 20K. With the 18-105 kit lens a sub 30K price would be very attractive. Current prices for new/used D90's may have got a boost from the impaired production at Nikon factories in Japan and Thailand. Hopefully once Nikon resumes full production more D90's will become available at affordable prices.
D3100, D5100, D90 comparisons:
Nikon D5100 vs D90
Nikon D3100 vs D90
Nikon D5100 vs D3100
D3100, D5100, D90 comparisons:
Nikon D5100 vs D90
Nikon D3100 vs D90
Nikon D5100 vs D3100
ajay124
Well-Known Member
Returned the 55-200mm lens back to the shop today. The 35mm f/1.8G prime lens has completely demolished any attraction I may have had for zoom lenses. Especially budget zoom lenses like the 55-200. Photography has been an occasional indulgence for me. The D40 is my third SLR but earlier I never progressed beyond the Auto mode :sad: The last few days have been dedicating completely to learning more about photography. I have started gaining a dim understanding of stuff like ISO, exposure compensation, white balance, metering, focusing and using available light rather than unimaginatively resorting to the pop up flash! Shooting stills has become far more creative, interesting and rewarding. The pleasure and discovery of shooting at various aperture settings and shutter speeds and fiddling with the exposure settings is very addictive. Hopefully I have dumped most of the auto modes for good! For the moment I am doing elementary editing in iPhotos but I intend to get a more comprehensive photo editing software which works on Mac OS.
I prefer simple, minimalist things and the 35mm prime lens is just that. It is very comfortable to handle and a pleasure to shoot with. It makes you work harder and think harder. But the fruit of that extra labor can be sweet and juicy. I am happy with only this lens and my D40. But temptation is always lurking and desire never ceases! On 6 Jan 2012 Nikon announced a new lens which they will begin shipping in March. A fixed focus AF-S 85mm f/1.8G telephoto lens for 499$. There are very few 'budget' choices in prime lenses. Because I have the 35mm f1/8G it does not make much sense to buy a similar 50mm lens. The new 85mm is a little outside my budget but it would more or less complete my arsenal of lenses!
I 'demoed' the Nikon 3100 and Nikon 5100 DSLR's today. Both have great specs and pricing but personally I did not like their look, touch or feel. At sub 50K prices most manufacturers are offering plastic bodies with minimal manual controls but I prefer the look and feel of the older generation of Nikon's like the D90 and D40. The viewfinder of the 3100/5100 is very small. 0,51x as compared to 0,53x on the D40 and 0,63x on the D90. And the D90 has a sharp pentaprism viewfinder as compared to the pentamirror on the other cameras. 3100/5100 have far less manual controls than the D90. The D90 body has a 'pro' feel and look while the D3100/5100 bodies look and feel distinctly entry level. D5100 has the more advanced sensor of the D7000 but its 'articulated' LCD screen is a big letdown for me. I like the look of my D40 more than these new generation babies. I would like to buy into the latest technology but I feel a well built body, comfortable controls, a high resolution viewfinder and screen are much more important. Which leaves me with very few options for future upgrades. The D7000 is not in my budget therefore the D90 remains as the only option. Many photographers who shoot for a living seem to be using the D90. I borrowed one from someone for a while and the body and controls feel perfect. The more I read about the D90 the more I I feel that it is the only one for me. It seems that a few months ago it was available for 48-50K with the 18-105 kit lens and roughly 35K for the body. But at the moment the dealers don't have a unit, although they may be able to arrange one. If I find a box packed D90 body with bill and warranty for around 35K I will buy it immediately. Otherwise I will wait for a lightly used bargain to come along! A D90 + 35mm f1/8G + 85mm f1/8G is my dream team. I may need to raise my budget a bit but this is the set up I want!
I prefer simple, minimalist things and the 35mm prime lens is just that. It is very comfortable to handle and a pleasure to shoot with. It makes you work harder and think harder. But the fruit of that extra labor can be sweet and juicy. I am happy with only this lens and my D40. But temptation is always lurking and desire never ceases! On 6 Jan 2012 Nikon announced a new lens which they will begin shipping in March. A fixed focus AF-S 85mm f/1.8G telephoto lens for 499$. There are very few 'budget' choices in prime lenses. Because I have the 35mm f1/8G it does not make much sense to buy a similar 50mm lens. The new 85mm is a little outside my budget but it would more or less complete my arsenal of lenses!
I 'demoed' the Nikon 3100 and Nikon 5100 DSLR's today. Both have great specs and pricing but personally I did not like their look, touch or feel. At sub 50K prices most manufacturers are offering plastic bodies with minimal manual controls but I prefer the look and feel of the older generation of Nikon's like the D90 and D40. The viewfinder of the 3100/5100 is very small. 0,51x as compared to 0,53x on the D40 and 0,63x on the D90. And the D90 has a sharp pentaprism viewfinder as compared to the pentamirror on the other cameras. 3100/5100 have far less manual controls than the D90. The D90 body has a 'pro' feel and look while the D3100/5100 bodies look and feel distinctly entry level. D5100 has the more advanced sensor of the D7000 but its 'articulated' LCD screen is a big letdown for me. I like the look of my D40 more than these new generation babies. I would like to buy into the latest technology but I feel a well built body, comfortable controls, a high resolution viewfinder and screen are much more important. Which leaves me with very few options for future upgrades. The D7000 is not in my budget therefore the D90 remains as the only option. Many photographers who shoot for a living seem to be using the D90. I borrowed one from someone for a while and the body and controls feel perfect. The more I read about the D90 the more I I feel that it is the only one for me. It seems that a few months ago it was available for 48-50K with the 18-105 kit lens and roughly 35K for the body. But at the moment the dealers don't have a unit, although they may be able to arrange one. If I find a box packed D90 body with bill and warranty for around 35K I will buy it immediately. Otherwise I will wait for a lightly used bargain to come along! A D90 + 35mm f1/8G + 85mm f1/8G is my dream team. I may need to raise my budget a bit but this is the set up I want!
Last edited:
ajay124
Well-Known Member
Light performs some magic tricks in our back lawn. A little before sunset:
f/18, 1/40, ISO200, WB set to shade, spot metering, ev -0.3, images set to vivid+
f/10, 1/40, ISO200, WB set to shade, spot metering, ev -0.3, images set to vivid+
f/18, 1/40, ISO200, WB set to shade, spot metering, ev -0.3, images set to vivid+
f/10, 1/40, ISO200, WB set to shade, spot metering, ev -0.3, images set to vivid+
Last edited:
ajay124
Well-Known Member
These days I am spending very little time with my music system. I listen to the music of Johann Sebastian Bach for a couple of hours everyday because it tastes like single malt whereas most other music is currently tasting like blended whiskey! I am spending more time surfing photography sites and shooting, analyzing and editing photographs. So I guess I have temporarily handed in my budding audiophile card and I am now aspiring to become a budding photophile.
It is easy to spend 30-50K on an entry level DSLR and a couple of lenses. It is also easy to have a couple of fixed settings and modes on the camera with which to attack the subject one is shooting. There must be millions of people in the world handling their cameras like a weapon, attempting to capture Mont Blanc, Masai Mara and Machu Pichu. And failing. For lack of knowledge, imagination and practice. I belong to this brigade of point and shooters! For four years I have roamed far and wide with my D40 and 18-55 kit lens taking abysmally bad pictures. Because I made no effort to understand the camera I had or what it could potentially do. I was floating on a cloud of certainty that I had a fairly decent camera and composing skills. I felt I was doing a good job of collecting and hoarding the memories of my rambling travels. Memories of life irretrievably passing by.
I have learned more about about the theory and practice of photography in the past few days than I did in the past four years. I am still shooting bad pictures but I can identify some of the flaws! I can handle the menu options of the D40 quite effortlessly and intuitively now. I want to learn how to shoot without a zoom and in natural light. Use the light of the greatest energy source in the world. The almighty sun.
Yesterday I spent a few hours shooting pictures in the lit up environment of a couple of photo studios. I spoke to a few pros who seem to have spent their entire life shooting wedding portraits and passport sized photographs. I tried my best to gain some knowledge from them. But I was utterly disappointed and bored. Habit, commerce and a lack of imagination has ossified their skills. They passed into kindergarten many years ago and chose to remain there forever. I am sure there are exceptions but most of the photographers I came across when I was a a caterer were merely doing it for a living. Some of them still had a passion for their work. But they had stopped experimenting or attempting to learn anything new. I came across many such professionals in those years. Professional DJs blaring out their noise in every wedding. Bollywood, bhangra rap and remix. My desperate requests to the DJs and the party hosts to play better music fell on deaf ears. In most of the parties that I catered to even Michael Jackson, Stevie Wonder and Madonna were persona non grata. If I had requested some music by Bach, Beethoven or Bhimsen Joshi I would have been banished for life from the farmhouse which the host had fondly hired for a few lakhs! When I suggested something like Dire Straits, Eagles or Clapton the blank stares on their face seemed to be saying Whats your problem buddy? EVERYBODY plays the remix hits which we are playing! Well my problem was that this noise was hitting me from all directions from 9pm to 3am at which glorious hour the monstrous speakers finally fell silent and the last drunk and the last "dancer" mercifully staggered away from the dance floor!
I have rambled around a bit! My sincere apologies to folks who had the patience to hang around until this point
It is easy to spend 30-50K on an entry level DSLR and a couple of lenses. It is also easy to have a couple of fixed settings and modes on the camera with which to attack the subject one is shooting. There must be millions of people in the world handling their cameras like a weapon, attempting to capture Mont Blanc, Masai Mara and Machu Pichu. And failing. For lack of knowledge, imagination and practice. I belong to this brigade of point and shooters! For four years I have roamed far and wide with my D40 and 18-55 kit lens taking abysmally bad pictures. Because I made no effort to understand the camera I had or what it could potentially do. I was floating on a cloud of certainty that I had a fairly decent camera and composing skills. I felt I was doing a good job of collecting and hoarding the memories of my rambling travels. Memories of life irretrievably passing by.
I have learned more about about the theory and practice of photography in the past few days than I did in the past four years. I am still shooting bad pictures but I can identify some of the flaws! I can handle the menu options of the D40 quite effortlessly and intuitively now. I want to learn how to shoot without a zoom and in natural light. Use the light of the greatest energy source in the world. The almighty sun.
Yesterday I spent a few hours shooting pictures in the lit up environment of a couple of photo studios. I spoke to a few pros who seem to have spent their entire life shooting wedding portraits and passport sized photographs. I tried my best to gain some knowledge from them. But I was utterly disappointed and bored. Habit, commerce and a lack of imagination has ossified their skills. They passed into kindergarten many years ago and chose to remain there forever. I am sure there are exceptions but most of the photographers I came across when I was a a caterer were merely doing it for a living. Some of them still had a passion for their work. But they had stopped experimenting or attempting to learn anything new. I came across many such professionals in those years. Professional DJs blaring out their noise in every wedding. Bollywood, bhangra rap and remix. My desperate requests to the DJs and the party hosts to play better music fell on deaf ears. In most of the parties that I catered to even Michael Jackson, Stevie Wonder and Madonna were persona non grata. If I had requested some music by Bach, Beethoven or Bhimsen Joshi I would have been banished for life from the farmhouse which the host had fondly hired for a few lakhs! When I suggested something like Dire Straits, Eagles or Clapton the blank stares on their face seemed to be saying Whats your problem buddy? EVERYBODY plays the remix hits which we are playing! Well my problem was that this noise was hitting me from all directions from 9pm to 3am at which glorious hour the monstrous speakers finally fell silent and the last drunk and the last "dancer" mercifully staggered away from the dance floor!
I have rambled around a bit! My sincere apologies to folks who had the patience to hang around until this point
Last edited:
Ajay,
Generally it is not a good idea to use apertures as low as f/18. There would be significant amount of diffraction with such a small aperture.
There is a general perception that sharpness increases with decreased aperture. This is true up to a certain aperture, say f/8 or f/11 (depending on the lens assembly). Beyond that it is no longer true, because diffraction comes into effect. Diffraction (effects due to secondary source) is always there. When bright sunlight comes inside, watch for the edge of the shadow. You will see the edge is a little blurred, and this is due to diffraction. If the wavelengths of visible light were larger than what they are, effect would be more visible. Now as the lens opening becomes smaller and smaller, the wave character of light comes into effect more and more, and the images become less sharp.
I just did a little google search and there are plenty of links, for example Diffraction: When Smaller Apertures No Longer Mean Sharper Pictures - Photo Tips @ Earthbound Light.
Please try the same shots with less aperture, e.g. with f/8 or lower and see if you find differences (I am sure there will be differences with 100% size comparisons). Obviously the shutter speed will have to be much higher than 1/40 you have used to get comparable exposure. Also, the lowest ISO should be chosen. In your camera it is 200 I think. It's okay then.
Regards.
Last edited:
ajay124
Well-Known Member
Asit
The 35mm f1/8 is a low light lens which performs best between f1/8-f5.6. In the f8-f22 band diffraction progressively becomes more noticeable. I am still learning about this stuff and getting used to the lens. Most of the time I intend to use the A mode and low ISO settings. D40 gives good results till ISO 400 but beyond that images become noticeably noisy. I have decided to replace it with D5100 which has the same CMOS sensor as the D7000. It would be a huge improvement over the CCD sensor of the D40. The 35mm will take care of the 1/8-5.6 aperture range. I am planning to retain the 55-200 which I had returned and use it for f stops 8-16. I was trying out all the f stops in order to discover the effect it had on an identical image. The vivid colors of the attached images happened partly by design and partly by accident
The 35mm f1/8 is a low light lens which performs best between f1/8-f5.6. In the f8-f22 band diffraction progressively becomes more noticeable. I am still learning about this stuff and getting used to the lens. Most of the time I intend to use the A mode and low ISO settings. D40 gives good results till ISO 400 but beyond that images become noticeably noisy. I have decided to replace it with D5100 which has the same CMOS sensor as the D7000. It would be a huge improvement over the CCD sensor of the D40. The 35mm will take care of the 1/8-5.6 aperture range. I am planning to retain the 55-200 which I had returned and use it for f stops 8-16. I was trying out all the f stops in order to discover the effect it had on an identical image. The vivid colors of the attached images happened partly by design and partly by accident
Ajay,
I am confused now. The 35mm prime lens you mention has max aperture of f/1.8 which is a pretty large aperture and makes the lens a fast one (fast in the sense of large aperture). I think you are wrongly mentioning it as f1/8. Now my question: the picture in question: was it taken with a large aperture of f/1.8 or a very small aperture of f/18? Now based on your last post, I tend to think it is f/1.8.
Regards.
I am confused now. The 35mm prime lens you mention has max aperture of f/1.8 which is a pretty large aperture and makes the lens a fast one (fast in the sense of large aperture). I think you are wrongly mentioning it as f1/8. Now my question: the picture in question: was it taken with a large aperture of f/1.8 or a very small aperture of f/18? Now based on your last post, I tend to think it is f/1.8.
Regards.
Order now for just ₹19,990.00
Similar threads
