# Anybody have pictures taken with D5100 effects?



## Rexx6.0 (Sep 27, 2011)

I am leaning more towards a D5100 to learn on vs the 7000.   I am curious about the "Effects" that the 5100 has... anybody have pictures with these effects? Thanks.


----------



## Big Mike (Sep 27, 2011)

You're thinking about the wrong things.  'Effects' shouldn't influence your decision of one camera over another, especially when talking about good DSLR cameras like this.


----------



## MTVision (Sep 27, 2011)

I have the d5100 and have used the effects. Don't buy based on the effects. I used them the day I got my camera but never touched them again. All the effects it had to offer can be done better in an editing program!


----------



## Rexx6.0 (Sep 27, 2011)

The effects aren't what is swaying me towards the 5100... the actual usability of it is.   I just won't ever use all the features the 7000 offers...

I just wanted to see some real life examples of the effects vs ones Nikon "took"

Another reason for the effects I like, is I don't want to be someone who has to edit all my pictures in a program afterwards.  Not a fan of "post-editing" pictures you took, just my .02....


----------



## Rexx6.0 (Sep 27, 2011)

Forgot to mention I am going to be upgrading from a D70s.... so I think either camera will be a decent upgrade from what I currently am learning on.


----------



## DorkSterr (Sep 27, 2011)

I have both D5100 and D7000. If these are your only two options, just grab the D7000.


----------



## Rexx6.0 (Sep 27, 2011)

DorkSterr said:


> I have both D5100 and D7000. If these are your only two options, just grab the D7000.



Just got back home from BestBuy... played with both the D5100 and D7000....   I like the 7000 more... not sure why, seems like the menus are easier to work with, do more, and it has preset settings for various occasions I can quickly select when not running full manual.

The 5100 wasn't bad, it just had a feeling of "missing something"   plus I didn't understand how to set some of the effects to work completely.   Either way, I felt more at home with the 7000....   now I need to get these 2 weddings I have to DJ out of the way so I can sell most of my DJ gear.


----------



## MTVision (Sep 27, 2011)

Rexx6.0 said:
			
		

> The effects aren't what is swaying me towards the 5100... the actual usability of it is.   I just won't ever use all the features the 7000 offers...
> 
> I just wanted to see some real life examples of the effects vs ones Nikon "took"
> 
> Another reason for the effects I like, is I don't want to be someone who has to edit all my pictures in a program afterwards.  Not a fan of "post-editing" pictures you took, just my .02....



And what exactly do MY pictures have to do with you buying a camera? If you want to critique my pictures then you can do on MY thread thank you very much. 

And I didn't "take" any "post-editing" pictures. They are pictures taken THEN edited. I didn't realize by giving my opinion on a camera that you would get so offended that you would have to crap on my NEWBIE pictures.


----------



## edwardspw (Sep 27, 2011)

MTVision said:
			
		

> And what exactly do MY pictures have to do with you buying a camera? If you want to critique my pictures then you can do on MY thread thank you very much.
> 
> And I didn't "take" any "post-editing" pictures. They are pictures taken THEN edited. I didn't realize by giving my opinion on a camera that you would get so offended that you would have to crap on my NEWBIE pictures.



I don't think the original poster was referring to your pictures. I believe he or she was saying "not a fan" of the process of editing photos on a computer.


----------



## MTVision (Sep 27, 2011)

Not a fan of "post-editing" pictures *you *took, just my .02.... 						

^^^ exact wording. The OP said they don't want to be a person who has to edit all the pictures in a program after - which if he can achieve that more power to him - but then goes on to say..."Not a fan of "post-editing" pictures you took, just my .02"  Seems to me that with the "you" he was referring to my pictures otherwise he would've said not a fan of post edited pictures.  Which would be odd because that would mean he's not a fan on ANY picture because all pictures of post processed either in-camera or in an editing program.


----------



## MTVision (Sep 27, 2011)

MTVision said:


> Not a fan of "post-editing" pictures *you *took, just my .02....
> 
> ^^^ exact wording. The OP said they don't want to be a person who has to edit all the pictures in a program after - which if he can achieve that more power to him - but then goes on to say..."Not a fan of "post-editing" pictures you took, just my .02"  Seems to me that with the "you" he was referring to my pictures otherwise he would've said not a fan of post edited pictures.  Which would be odd because that would mean he's not a fan on ANY picture because all pictures of post processed either in-camera or in an editing program.



Not trying to be bitchy to you, edwardspw!


----------



## edwardspw (Sep 27, 2011)

No bitchiness taken


----------



## Rexx6.0 (Sep 27, 2011)

MTVision said:


> Rexx6.0 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I didn't mean anything directly towards you, it was how I worded my sentence i guess.   I value everyone's opinions online, if I like them or not.  And when I said "you", it was meant to be taken as anyone in general, not directly pointed to you.Sorry if I upset you, no hatin' from me, I must have worded my post wrong...


----------



## tevo (Sep 27, 2011)

Rexx6.0 said:


> The effects aren't what is swaying me towards the 5100... the actual usability of it is.*   I just won't ever use all the features the 7000 offers*...
> 
> I just wanted to see some real life examples of the effects vs ones Nikon "took"
> 
> Another reason for the effects I like, is I don't want to be someone who has to edit all my pictures in a program afterwards.  Not a fan of "post-editing" pictures you took, just my .02....



disagree.


----------



## tevo (Sep 27, 2011)

MTVision said:


> Not a fan of "post-editing" pictures *you *took, just my .02....
> 
> ^^^ exact wording. The OP said they don't want to be a person who has to edit all the pictures in a program after - which if he can achieve that more power to him - but then goes on to say..."Not a fan of "post-editing" pictures you took, just my .02"  Seems to me that with the "you" he was referring to my pictures otherwise he would've said not a fan of post edited pictures.  Which would be odd because that would mean he's not a fan on ANY picture because all pictures of post processed either in-camera or in an editing program.



He means he isnt a fan of post processing pictures that have been taken... he used you in a hypothetical manner. I doubt he has seen your work


----------



## tevo (Sep 27, 2011)

Sorry for spam, but I would highly recommend the D7000. You feel so much more free with it than with a lower end model - for a digital camera it feels way more manual, while still having good Auto mode(s).


----------



## MTVision (Sep 27, 2011)

Rexx6.0 said:


> MTVision said:
> 
> 
> > Rexx6.0 said:
> ...



Ok.  But, every picture taken needs some kind of tweaking.  Even JPEGS are processed - its just done in camera.  Maybe you mean OVER-processed pictures.  If you shoot in RAW you have to process them.


----------



## tevo (Sep 27, 2011)

MTVision said:


> Rexx6.0 said:
> 
> 
> > MTVision said:
> ...



Completely true! 


We <3 MTVision


----------



## Forkie (Sep 28, 2011)

I never, ever use built-in camera effects and don't think I've ever met anyone who does.  They are gimmicky and usually poorly rendered.  I would advise you forget the special effects and get used to a little post processing - it doesn't make you any less of a photographer.


----------

