# Advice needed for beginner



## moonrad (Jun 11, 2012)

Hi guys.

Having used P&S and bridge cameras for a while, I'm looking to take the next step and purchase an SLR.

I've been looking for some time at the different models, and my preference is towards Nikon. Specifically, the D3200 or D5100 as these are similarly priced with and without the kit lens and have fairly similar specs.

I'm also looking to get a couple of lenses as I like to shoot a variety of pictures, the lenses I'm currently considering are:

Nikon AF-S 35mm f1.8 G DX
Nikon AF-S 40mm Micro F2.8 G DX
Nikon AF-S 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 G DX VR (possibly as part of the kit deal)
Nikon AF-S 55-300mm F4.5-5.6 G ED VR

As someone with next to no experience with DSLRs (I've used my dads film SLR a few times), I want to make absolutely sure of my choices before taking the plunge. 

I'd just like to get your opinions to see if I'm heading in the right direction.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## Solarflare (Jun 11, 2012)

I prefer the D5100 for its much higher tolerance to low light and the swirvel monitor - great to see what you're doing from extreme viewpoints. At ISO 100, the D5100 also has amazing dynamic range (12 steps instead of 9.3 for the D3200). Mind this is only true as long as you shoot raw; JPEG cannot record such a dynamic range in the first place. Finally, the D5100 seems to have the more advanced controls over the D3200, even if the D7000 is even better. The advantage of the D3200 is better movies, more mpixel with a lot more noise and less resolution than D5100/D7000 from ISO 800 on, better color depth at ISO 100 (24.1 bit vs 23.5 bit for D5100/D7000, and a bit less weight - ~500g vs ~550g for the D5100, both with battery and memory chip).

About your selection of lenses, I would like to note that many people complained when they had the midlevel zoom 18-55mm and either the 55-200 or 55-300 (or the FX 70-300 one) telezooms, they had to keep switching the lens all the time. Thus they recomment to pick the 18-105mm zoom instead.

Personally I feel my 35mm/1.8 DX prime lens makes my 18-55mm lens pretty much completely obsolete. I can "zoom by feet" instead. That said, the 18-55mm IS a very, very nice lens, especially for its price.

And about macro, I heard multiple people state that "macro isnt for everyone".


----------



## Alan92RTTT (Jun 11, 2012)

Solarflare said:


> About your selection of lenses, I would like to note that many people complained when they had the midlevel zoom 18-55mm and either the 55-200 or 55-300 (or the FX 70-300 one) telezooms, they had to keep switching the lens all the time. Thus they recomment to pick the 18-105mm zoom instead.



I am one of the "many" IMO the 18-55 is a nice starter/kit lens but its grown annoying fast.  I love the 18-105. 

Currently I use the 18-105, the 35mm 1.8 and the 70-300 VR. 

What really got me on the road away from the 18-55 and the 55-200 was the experience I had shooting a friends car on an overcast day. I had to bump the exposure and use flash in the middle of the afternoon to get a decent shot with the 18-55 I could not get it to look right. I had just gotten the 70-300 and put it on just to see what it would do (that whole playing with the new toy thing.)  As soon as I dropped the 70-300 on I had to reset the exposure and turn off the flash as I was overexposing.  The result is I deleted all the pics from the 18-55 and re-shot with the 70-300. 

MY belief is that the larger 62mm opening on the 70-300 lets in more light so there is more at the aperture. Once I got the 18-105 (which has the same front opening) I got the same feel of "brighter". I plan to do a side by side and see what the difference i. I just have not had the time yet.


----------



## moonrad (Jun 11, 2012)

Hi Solarflare!

Thanks for the advice.

I considered the D5100 first as it was a step up from the basic level, but when the D3200 was announced, it gave me a little more to consider. I seriously considered getting the D7000 (and it may still be an option with the 39 focus points being a big plus), but the price was the overriding factor against as I have been advised to invest more in glass rather than the body until I'm more used to shooting with an SLR.

I would mainly be shooting RAW anyway as I do prefer to do my own post processing (Lightroom/Photoshop).

With regards to lenses, I'm not click-happy, and tend to take my time with shots, and should hopefully not be changing lenses too much. The reason I was looking at the 55-300mm was to get a bit extra range. With the 18-55mm kit lens just adding ~£100 to the price of the body anyway, I thought that would be a good place to start.

As for the 35mm 1.8, I've heard great things and think this will be a must-buy whichever body I choose. The 40mm Macro lens was my final choice, and mostly so that I could capture half decent Macro shots (which I do like taking, and with an SLR + Macro lens, hopefully get better at.

I will have a look at the 18-105 lens and give it a good comparison to the others.


----------



## fjrabon (Jun 11, 2012)

I think the 18-55mm is a good lens, but I almost never use it.  Pretty much the two lenses I keep on my camera are the 35mm f/1.8 and the sigma 10-20mm wide angle.  I'd say those two lenses comprise about 95% of my shots.  About the only time I grab the 18-55mm is when I'm just walking around taking a variety of snapshots in a city area where I might want something a bit wider than 35mm.  

Unless you're really into video, I think the D5100 is a much better camera than the D3200.


----------



## Forkie (Jun 11, 2012)

I have regular use of the 18-105mm (although it's not mine) and I find it suffers from terrible barrel distortion at the wide end of the focal range.  If I were choosing from the lenses you listed in the OP, I'd go for the 35mm prime and the 55-300mm.  That way, you have a good sharp wide angle (you can move if you want to get closer or further away from your subject!) and great reach with the zoom.  

I'd opt for the D5100 just for its better low light handling over the D3200.


----------



## moonrad (Jun 11, 2012)

@Alan

Hi!

I have looked at the 70-300mm several times, but didn't think I could justify the higher price when compared to the 55-300.

If I do choose to go with the D7000, I will probably go with the 18-105mm kit lens anyway.

@fjrabon

Hi!

Not really into video much atm, but may be at a later stage, so would like to have decent video capabilities available just in case.


A couple more questions:

Is it advisable to use UV filters to a) protect the glass & b) block any flare?

With regards to memory cards, I'm looking at a couple of cards, probably about 16 or 32Gb, but not sure what Class to go for and finding it a little complicated to sort through all the different types. Having never used a DSLR, I'm not sure how one performs against another.

I have been having another look round at the different bodies, and now I'm torn between three options.

1. D3200 (can get it for about £510, £580 w/ 18-55mm kit lens)
2. D5100 (can get it for about £400, £470 w/ 18-55mm kit lens)
3. D7000 (can get it for about £710, £930 w/ 18-105mm kit lens)

I'm really tempted to go for the D7000, but it wouldn't leave much for many extra lenses/accessories.


----------



## Alan92RTTT (Jun 11, 2012)

Forkie said:


> I have regular use of the 18-105mm (although it's not mine) and I find it suffers from terrible barrel distortion at the wide end of the focal range.



I use lightroom to process my raw files. Its interesting to see the change when LR "fixes" this. It looks like a wave that ripples out from the center when it happens. 

If I were a pro it might bother me. Then again, If I were a pro I'd have a lens with a fixed aperture not a variable aperture kit lens . 

Seeing the before/after effect I still like the 18-105 more than the 18-55.


----------



## fjrabon (Jun 11, 2012)

moonrad said:


> @fjrabon
> 
> Hi!
> 
> ...



THe D5100 does great video, it's just that the D3200 is a touch better in some regards.  I wouldn't buy the D3200 for more money than the D5100 unless the whole point was the video.  

I don't like UV filters.  Just use the lens hood (which is a draw back to the 18-55mm kit lens, as there isn't a good hood for it, since the end rotates as you change focal lengths on that lens) and the lens cap.  UV filters just add a layer of cheap glass that doesn't even really protect the camera.


----------



## gryffinwings (Jun 11, 2012)

I would recommend at least a Nikon D5100, but the kit lens 18-55mm will feel really limited do to feeling like you want more zoom. You will most likely like to get the 18-105mm lens. You might definitely consider the D7000, lots of room to grow and it comes with the 18-105mm lens. Then consider getting other lens later.


----------



## Bukitimah (Jun 11, 2012)

My 2-cent input here. If you are looking at 3100 and 5100, then I would suggest to go straight into the 7000. The body is just 1 part of the equation. You have listed a few lenses. Save a bit of $ and put them on the body first. Build your lenses as you grow.

Maybe start off with your 35mm and 55-300 mm if that are the range you will be shooting.


----------



## gryffinwings (Jun 12, 2012)

To be honest, I wouldn't recommend a 35mm as a main lens. Yes it's good in low light and you can use you legs to zoom, in some situations, but I find that can't do that all the time. It's usually, IMHO, better as a specialty or secondary lens. A better lens to start of is an 18-105mm, because I think it's a very versatile lens, more so than the 18-55mm which I feel like I'm changing lens more.


----------



## moonrad (Jun 12, 2012)

Hi all, thanks for all your comments!

Now that I've found the D7000 for a bit less, I'm looking more towards that than the other two. One of the main things I liked about it was the controls, and not having to dig through too many menus to change settings.

As for lenses, there's too much choice!  I want to be able to get as much focal range from my choice of lenses without much overlapping. Here's a list of all the lenses and their prices:

35mm - £160
40mm Micro - £200
18-55mm - £80 (white box)
18-105mm - £220
55-200mm - £120
55-300mm - £230

For the price alone, I will probably discount the 40mm Micro and maybe get it at a later stage if I need a Macro lens.
I prefer to get a Prime lens and from what I've researched, the 35mm is a good starting point.
The 18-55mm seems a good buy for the white box as retail would cost almost double that. The other zoom lenses I'm not too sure about.

And if anyone has any thoughts on memory cards, I would be very grateful for your input.


----------



## fjrabon (Jun 12, 2012)

moonrad said:


> Hi all, thanks for all your comments!
> 
> Now that I've found the D7000 for a bit less, I'm looking more towards that than the other two. One of the main things I liked about it was the controls, and not having to dig through too many menus to change settings.
> 
> ...



It depends on how and what you shoot as far as the other zooms go.  Also, always remember that if you shoot well enough and sharp enough, you can (more or less) crop a 35mm into a 100mm anyway.  But I'm not a telephoto fan to begin with.  I almost never use mine.  So take that for what you will.


----------



## Solarflare (Jun 12, 2012)

You can get the D3200, D5100 and D7000 either body only, with the 18-55mm, or with the 18-105mm lens.

Not sure what you want to know about memory cards ... get one ?

I simply got me a 32gb for my D5100 and use it since then.


----------



## fjrabon (Jun 12, 2012)

Solarflare said:


> You can get the D3200, D5100 and D7000 either body only, with the 18-55mm, or with the 18-105mm lens.
> 
> Not sure what you want to know about memory cards ... get one ?
> 
> I simply got me a 32gb for my D5100 and use it since then.



One thing is that a lot of photographers generally prefer several smaller cards to one large card.  The reason being that if you lose a 64 GB card A) it's expensive and B) you've lost a LOT of pictures.  You should probably have at least 3-4 extra cards in your bag anyway, and even if you shoot RAW + JPEG fine (which I dont advise, just shoot RAW only), four 8GB cards should be more than enough.  Also, the same total size broken into multiple memory cards is usually cheaper (or at least no more expensive) than one single gigantic memory card.  ie, you will usually save money buying 4 16GB cards as opposed to 1 64 GB card.


----------



## SCraig (Jun 12, 2012)

fjrabon said:


> It depends on how and what you shoot as far as the other zooms go.  Also, always remember that if you shoot well enough and sharp enough, you can (more or less) crop a 35mm into a 100mm anyway.  But I'm not a telephoto fan to begin with.  I almost never use mine.  So take that for what you will.


Most of the posts in this thread have commented on how short lenses will leave you looking for more reach and how longer lenses will leave you looking for more width.  This is about the only one that touched on the truth:  YOU have to decide what YOU want to shoot.  These aren't bridge cameras with 30x lens range.  If you plan to shoot up close you will need a wide angle lens.  If you plan to shoot subjects at a distance you are going to need a telephoto lens.  There is not one lens that will do everything.

With an APS-C sensor camera the 35mm lens is considered to be a "Normal" lens in that it approximates the vision of the human eye.  If you want wider angle then get below 35mm.  If you want more magnification get above 35mm.

I am the opposite of fjrabon though.  I'm not a wide angle fan and seldom use mine except when I'm inside.  The majority of what I shoot is at 150mm or longer.


----------



## Solarflare (Jun 12, 2012)

SCraig said:


> [...]  There is not one lens that will do everything. [...]


 Well ... there is, but its expensive, heavy, and picture quality wise its not that great: Nikkor AF-S DX 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED VR II.


----------



## fjrabon (Jun 12, 2012)

Solarflare said:


> SCraig said:
> 
> 
> > [...]  There is not one lens that will do everything. [...]
> ...



ha, though 18-200 still isn't everything.  I do a lot of shooting between 10-18mm.  and if you shoot wildlife you'll quickly want more than 200mm.


----------



## SCraig (Jun 12, 2012)

fjrabon said:


> ha, though 18-200 still isn't everything.  I do a lot of shooting between 10-18mm.  and if you shoot wildlife you'll quickly want more than 200mm.


Precisely.  As I said most of my shooting STARTS at 150mm and goes up from there.  For a lot of shots I really like the reach of my Sigma 150-500 and would be lost without it.  A 200 is nowhere near long enough for my purposes.


----------



## Solarflare (Jun 12, 2012)

fjrabon said:


> Solarflare said:
> 
> 
> > SCraig said:
> ...


 I am aware. Also, no macro. But still - thats a 10x zoom like you get it for many compact cameras.


----------



## Alan92RTTT (Jun 12, 2012)

moonrad said:


> I want to be able to get as much focal range from my choice of lenses without much overlapping.


Nothing wrong with a bit of overlap. 

I will stand my my recommendation of the 18-105. 

Yes, the 18-55 is inexpensive but it is a starter lens and you will outgrow. You stated you are looking at the D7000 now(I want one) their is a reason that the 18-105 is offered as the kit lens on that body. Its the better option long term. 

I'm going to make a suggestion, stop worrying about lens selection at this point. Get the 18-105 and don't worry about anything else right now. Get the camera and take the time to learn the camera. Learn what you like to shoot and what you feel the need for. Then start slowly researching lenses to let you take the pics you wanted but could not with the 18-105.  You don't need to have a full lens selection on the day you get the camera.


----------



## fjrabon (Jun 12, 2012)

Alan92RTTT said:


> moonrad said:
> 
> 
> > I want to be able to get as much focal range from my choice of lenses without much overlapping.
> ...



Image quality wise, the 18-55mm is just as good as the 18-105mm.  The reason it's included as the kit lens for the D7000 is because it's a wider zoom range, which is easier for salesmen to sell to people buying their first dSLR (which is the majority or people who buy a body with a kit lens).  "But if you step up to the D7000, not only are you getting a better camera, but your lens can zoom up to 10X!  You can get all those awesome pictures of humming birds from the comfort of your back porch, even through a screen!"


----------



## Alan92RTTT (Jun 12, 2012)

My point is that its more versatile. You may not see this as you prefer taking wider angle images. 

This is the OP's 1st DSLR having a more versatile lens would be of benefit till he can find what he needs to fill his needs.


----------



## gryffinwings (Jun 12, 2012)

Alan92RTTT said:


> My point is that its more versatile. You may not see this as you prefer taking wider angle images. This is the OP's 1st DSLR having a more versatile lens would be of benefit till he can find what he needs to fill his needs.


 I agree with this.


----------



## fjrabon (Jun 12, 2012)

Alan92RTTT said:


> My point is that its more versatile. You may not see this as you prefer taking wider angle images.
> 
> This is the OP's 1st DSLR having a more versatile lens would be of benefit till he can find what he needs to fill his needs.



I understand that, I am just making it clear that it's not a 'better' lens.  Most people 'outgrow' the 18-105mm lens quickly as well if they're serious about photography.  It's not a bad lens by any means, but for serious photographers it's just too limited.  It takes very good pictures between about 35mm and 70mm and between f/8 and f/11.  

If anything most photographers tend to go from a single 'do everything' lens, to several specialized lenses as they grow as photographers, whereas your previous statement sort of implied that the reverse is true, by saying that the OP would quickly 'grow out' of the 18-55mm and would be better served in the long term with the 18-105mm.  

I think a good zoom with a wide range is good when you very first start (or two zooms that cover a wide range), because it gives you an idea of how you want to shoot.  But as you gain a better understanding of how you shoot, do everything lenses like the 18-105mm become near useless for anything other than family vacations.  

In fact, going from a beginner to intermediate, one of the first things experienced photographers will advise is putting the super zoom away, and really nailing down a couple of focal lengths, and really understanding how aperture changes your shots.  You can't really do that on the 18-105mm (or the 18-55mm either)

I think we ultimately agree, but from seeing a lot of these threads around here, I know that most people in the OP's situation would have taken the post I originally responded to from you as meaning "get the 18-105mm, it's better quality" which I know you didn't say, but that is how many would take it, and I just wanted to clear up that it is not in fact a better quality lens than the 18-55mm, it can just shoot at more focal lengths.

edit: I say all this as somebody who demo'd the 18-105mm from a friend who was trying to unload it.  I had it for a month, and I just never found any use for it.  It wasn't a bad lens, but it doesn't do anything particularly well, which is the case for almost all zooms with a wide range of focal lengths, unless you're shelling out MEGA dollars.


----------



## Alan92RTTT (Jun 12, 2012)

I use the 18-105 as my walk-around, vacation general use lens. This is a use that IMO the 18-55 fails at. 

As I grow as a photographer I will get more specialized lenses(ie the 35mm 1.8) but I see myself using the 18-105 in that walk-around/vacation role for a long time.


----------



## moonrad (Jun 12, 2012)

Hi again!

Thank you very much for all your comments, you're all definitely giving me a lot to think about.

My shooting preference is very varied. I like taking shots with friends and family (indoors and out), landscape shots, close up (macro) shots, I like taking textures for stock images for photoshop and also like nature shots.

The reason I asked about memory cards is as I haven't used a DSLR before, I don't know how the different class cards compare to each other. I.E. how much better would a class 10 card be to a class 6? I'm looking at getting a few cards to give me plenty of space, probably 16Gb cards.

Thanks again.


----------



## Alan92RTTT (Jun 12, 2012)

I use 4gb class 4's in my D5000. That gives me about 250-300 raw images per card. I have 2 4gb and two older 2gb as backups. 

Given your shot preference if varied I'd suggest the 18-105 to start. Its a decent Jack-of-all trades lens that you can use to get your feet wet.


----------



## Rwsphotos (Jun 12, 2012)

fjrabon said:


> Solarflare said:
> 
> 
> > You can get the D3200, D5100 and D7000 either body only, with the 18-55mm, or with the 18-105mm lens.
> ...



I would add the higher the class of card the faster the write speed. I run class 10 cards but it is up to you how fast you want your camera to record.


----------



## moonrad (Jun 13, 2012)

Hi all!

Thanks for the info.

One more thing to ask. What is the likelihood of the D7000 successor being released this year?


----------



## sleist (Jun 13, 2012)

Forkie said:


> I have regular use of the 18-105mm (although it's not mine) and I find it suffers from terrible barrel distortion at the wide end of the focal range.  If I were choosing from the lenses you listed in the OP, I'd go for the 35mm prime and the 55-300mm.  That way, you have a good sharp wide angle (you can move if you want to get closer or further away from your subject!) and great reach with the zoom.



I don't understand these distortion complaints with respect to these consumer kit lenses.  It's even more silly when you consider that, with one click and and the use of a slider, the distortion is largely taken care of:

Uncorrected:







Corrected in Capture NX2:






The cost of a lens without distortion at the wide end is far more than the cost of a cheaper lens plus software that can be used for ALL lenses to correct distortion, as well as process in other ways.
There is no perfect lens.

You want to complain about something, complain about uncorrectable CA in $1200 fast prime.  

Also, opinions differ of course, but 35mm is not very wide on a DX body - in fact it's down right normal.  People need to be able to get wider.  That's why kit lenses are 18-xxx mm.  At a later date, they may decide that they don't shoot wide, but I would lose my mind if the widest I could go was 35mm on a DX body.


I thought you might like to see what the $1300 Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 does at 17mm:






And corrected.  Same button click (no slider though). Color distortion was also corrected by same click - boy the 17-55 REALLY sucks! Who knew?


----------



## moonrad (Jun 14, 2012)

Thanks Sleist!

Your comparison helps to make it a lot clearer.

As I said before, I do use Lightroom and Photoshop quite a bit, so corrections like this shouldn't be a problem.

Thanks again.


----------



## moonrad (Jun 15, 2012)

Hi all!

Does anyone have a recommendation for a backpack? I'm looking at the sling-style ones as I want to be able to have access to the camera and equipment without having to take the bag off.

There are a couple I've been looking at, but would like to hear from those with some experience?

And does anyone have any idea if the D7000 successor will be out any time soon? I'd hate to spend so much money on a D700 and a better model comes out a month later.


----------



## spicyTuna (Jun 17, 2012)

Check www.nikonrumors.com for possible Nikon new cameras.


----------



## nehas8 (Jun 17, 2012)

It will be helpful if you mention the type of photography you are most interested in.
Because if you like landscape photography - you should invest in a good wide angle lens for sure. 10-24mm is very good.
Otherwise, I love the 35mm lens. It is an excellent lens.
If you want zooming capabilities, 55-300mm is a decent choice.
I wouldn't recommend buying the 18-55mm. It is a starter lens. But seems like you have the budget to get 2 lenses. You can go for 35mm and one other lens based on your interest.


----------

