# Help a beginner getting started?



## Oplis (Nov 15, 2010)

Hi, I've never owned a DSLR camera, but I've been doing my reading (Langford's Basic Photography, 9th edition) and I'm just trying to figure out what a good choice of camera for me might be.

First, I'm mostly leaning towards Nikon. My P&S was Nikon, I was very happy with it, and every person I've spoken to leaned in favour of Nikon for a beginner. So between the recommendations and my previous product satisfaction, I'm willing to give them the favoured advantage.

Second, my budget is flexible. I'm not looking to become a professional photographer or anything, and really I can't predict myself getting a job anywhere that would require me to own a camera, but who knows what might happen... I'm not banking on it though. I would be willing to pay for something like a D7000 if it means the camera will last me for most of my life and most possible employment opportunities that I could potentially find, and that I'm not going to sit there wishing I'd spent the money on lenses, or just stuck with entry-level bodies and upgraded every so often as I get more experience and understand what I need and don't need for my uses.

Anyways... With that aside, I intend to use the camera for landscape photography, wildlife and nature photography (animals, plants, etc), as well as photographing pets at home. I'm also interested in macro photography (insects, flowers, etc). But for now, since winter's coming and I've never used a DSLR, I'm just going to practice on pets indoors where my subjects are easily accessible and conditions are more controllable and predictable until I get the hang of things a bit.

With that said, I personally don't feel that I need an expensive camera like the D7000. But without practical experience, I can't really say that for certain. Perhaps the faster speed of the camera will make a significant difference photographing wild animals from a distance. Or perhaps I wont really notice the difference unless I'm taking hundreds of pictures every day in extreme conditions. Or perhaps it's absolutely critical for macro photography. 

If it were up to me to make a leap of faith this instant, I would probably get the D3100 body with the 18-55mm VR kit lens to practice and learn on indoors.

Thanks in advance, it's a little daunting jumping into such a technical hobby like this, with such a price tag on the equipment, without getting as much input on your decisions possible.


----------



## Big Mike (Nov 15, 2010)

Nikon/Canon...it won't matter.  Sony & Pentax would also be good but I prefer the 'big boys' (Canon or Nikon).

The lens (or lenses) you get, will probably be a bigger factor than the brand or model of camera that you get, so consider that in your budget.  For example, you will likely be better off with a cheaper DSLR camera and better lenses, rather than the 'cheap' lenses.


----------



## Oplis (Nov 15, 2010)

Right, that's another reason why I'm leaning towards the cheaper D3100...

More money for lenses, carrying bags, etc, which sound more useful to me than a better body...

But like I said, without actual experience it's difficult for me to know whether or not I'll need a better body for my intended applications, or whether it would just be very minimal (if any) difference that couldn't be compensated for by just becoming a better photographer.


----------



## chito beach (Nov 15, 2010)

Oplis said:


> Right, that's another reason why I'm leaning towards the cheaper D3100...
> 
> More money for lenses, carrying bags, etc, which sound more useful to me than a better body...
> 
> But like I said, without actual experience it's difficult for me to know whether or not I'll need a better body for my intended applications, or whether it would just be very minimal (if any) difference that couldn't be compensated for by just becoming a better photographer.



What are your intended applications?


----------



## Oplis (Nov 15, 2010)

I will be taking photos of indoor subjects, plants and pets, under  pretty standard indoor lighting conditions (by which I mean I don't have any fancy lighting, just the lamps on my tables and the ceiling lights) either with or without window  light present, and occasionally under higher-watt full-spectrum  fluorescent lighting. With these I have freedom to be about as close or  far as I want. I would like to be able to take close ups of some things  like flowers or leaves about 1-6 inches in length  to show greater detail in the colouration or anatomy, as well as wider angle of view photographs of  whole 3-5ft paludarium-style enclosures.

For outdoor application  I'll be taking photographs mostly of plants and trees. As well I will be  taking photographs of landscapes across bodies of water, skylines and  the sort. It would not be unreasonable to assume that I would be taking  pictures in as dim light as during sunset hours, or in shaded woods.  Although don't anticipate to be out as it's getting dark and turning to  night.  It would be nice to have a lens capable of photographing close  shots of  easily spooked animals like deer or wild birds which are normally  difficult to get anywhere close to and have to be observed from a  distance. Though I really don't think these are the sort of pictures I'd  normally be inclined to go out looking for.

I think macro  photography would really be the most specialized application I'd be  using it for. I'm mostly talking about photographing closeups of  something like flowers to get the details of the anatomy, or closeups of  insects, snails, or other such small moving things.

If you have  some good sources of information you feel I should read then by all  means share and I will read. I'm sure you answer questions like these  all the time, so thanks for your patience. I hope I'm making myself easy  to help here.


----------



## Light Artisan (Nov 15, 2010)

For your usage the D3100 sounds like it would be fine, but I'll point out a couple items you may or may not care about.

1. D7000 has the ability to autofocus lenses without an AF motor built in, D3100 does not.

2. D7000 can act as a commander for Nikon's wireless flash units (SB600/700/800/900), D3100 cannot.

3. D7000 has a top LCD, D3100 does not.

4. D7000 has dual command dials, D3100 has one (not a real big issue).

There are more differences, but those are probably the ones you might care about more than shots per second or focal points, since you don't show an interest in sports or wildlife for example.

Yes, the D7000 is more expensive - but if you want to buy once get the D7000 in my opinion. It has a weather sealed body and partial magnesium alloy frame, plus an available (soon) battery grip that is handy for portrait oriented photos.


----------



## Oplis (Nov 15, 2010)

I was under the understanding that shots per second became important in macro photography, especially when the subject is moving (like for instance an ant crawling on the ground).

The fastest movement I can anticipate to be photographing would be fish in an aquarium which can be fast at times, and which are subjects as small as 1 inch in length. So say if I wanted to get a picture of them feeding, that would be an example of some faster movement. Would the slower body still be adequate to capture images like this?

I recall that it's really the long focal length lenses combined with the movement to follow something like a bird flying in the sky at a distance, or to get a close up shot of an athlete in the middle of the action that makes the shots per second so critical in wildlife and sports applications, and this wouldn't be such an issue working with shorter lenses.


----------



## KmH (Nov 15, 2010)

Forget about your lifetime.

The D7000 will be obsolete, and ancient in 10 years. :lmao:


----------



## Light Artisan (Nov 15, 2010)

If I understand you right you're confusing shutter speed with shots per second, it's the shutter speed that will stop motion (or show motion blur).

Did I understand you right?


----------



## Oplis (Nov 15, 2010)

Ok, yes, I had those confused.

I've looked it up though and clarified that shots per second is the number of pictures it can take within a second, automatically in a row (like if you wanted to capture an image of a soccer ball the precise moment it made contact with the player). Which your right, I'm not too concerned with.

It's shutter speed that I'm more concerned about, in which case I'm looking at 1/4000 to 30s from the D3100 and 1/8000 to 30s from the D7000. But still not certain how much of a difference this would make...

If I remember correctly, the advisable minimum for shutter speed is 1/(lens length*crop factor)...

In which case I'm thinking the D3100 shouldn't restrict me at all even with macro photography.

And at KmH... Lol, yeah, technology... Go figure... Serves me right for thinking I could make a long-term investment with something digital. The correct option is becoming clearer and clearer.


----------



## Light Artisan (Nov 15, 2010)

Shouldn't, no... landscapes, perhaps. Shooting toward the sun I find myself above 1/4000th for example.


----------



## Oplis (Nov 15, 2010)

Could that perhaps be worked around by stopping down though?

There are a couple locations I know specifically that I would like to photograph during a sunset. One location would be facing more into the sun. The other however would be facing the opposite direction.

It's a nice location... But not quite a $600 sunset


----------



## Light Artisan (Nov 15, 2010)

Yes, but it depends on what effect you want. Once you close down the aperture you start getting more starburst effects.

Hope you don't mind examples:


----------



## Oplis (Nov 15, 2010)

I am utterly devastated that you would post examples. How dare you! 

Brilliant photos. Especially liked the first one there, personally.

Also thanks for the quick response time you've been giving me, it's been a big help!

So I think I'm going to get myself out to the photography store around here and take a look at the D3100. I may also take a look at the D3000, however this review: Nikon D3000makes quite a poor argument for that particular body and I think the difference in cost/value is negligible considering the performance difference noted in that review, and comments from others I've heard in regards to questionable performance and usability by the D3000.


----------



## Light Artisan (Nov 15, 2010)

Ahh, good old Ken... I'm just glad he finally let go of the D40. 

I like Ken's site, you just have to understand it and how he writes. I do agree with him on the D3000 vs D3100 debate however, and feel the D3100 is a better choice. I really enjoyed mine, but ultimately I exchanged it for a D7000 - but my uses are much different than yours. kids, sports, wildlife - in common we have landscapes, which the D3100 did quite well at, in fact I think it was the D3100 that captured the top image that you liked.


----------



## Oplis (Nov 15, 2010)

Hehe... I enjoyed reading his comments and reviews.

I deal with computer hardware a lot, and some of those reviewers act as if a 5C temperature difference will mean the difference between a stable system and crash. Or as if a 3 frame per second performance improvement will make the difference between stop motion animation and mindblowing cinematics like you never dreamed possible. 

It's refreshing to see a reviewer who doesn't attempt to hype up every little aspect and is willing to say "this is senseless feature that you probably wont care about, use, or even figure out how to use".


----------



## scovellephoto (Nov 16, 2010)

Oplis said:


> Hi, I've never owned a DSLR camera, but I've been doing my reading (Langford's Basic Photography, 9th edition) and I'm just trying to figure out what a good choice of camera for me might be.
> 
> First, I'm mostly leaning towards Nikon. My P&S was Nikon, I was very happy with it, and every person I've spoken to leaned in favour of Nikon for a beginner. So between the recommendations and my previous product satisfaction, I'm willing to give them the favoured advantage.
> 
> ...



the D3100 is a soled camera and defanetly great for entry level


----------

