need opinions about entry-level DSLR purchase

[Zach England]

I have decided I must have an SLR. I want it mostly for photographing my ceramic work, but I also want it for general photography and maybe shooting a bit of video, but the video is not a big priority.

I'd like to get a camera and general purpose lense for between $500-$600.

I am thinking Nikon d3100 or Canon EOS T3.

Thoughts?

[Jerome Stanek]

Check out one sale a day .com today they have a Nikon D3100 refurbished for $428.98 including shipping.

[Dick Latshaw]

If you are thinking d3100, you may want to wait a few weeks. The d3200 is due out 'real soon now'. You may also want to check out KEH for top quality used equipment.

[Larry Edgerton]

I have a Canon DSLR that I use on site to document progress and it has taken a beating for years and still works perfectly. It will be covered in dust when I forget to throw it back in the bag and I just blow and go. Its been great. My sister in law just bought the latest version and it does have some nice improvements over mine.

I also have a collection of Nikons, both digital and 35mm, and they are great cameras as well. I put one Nikormat in paticular through hell hiking and hunting in all kinds of weather. I actually wore all the paint off of it and it still works 35 years later, so I can't knock that choice either.

I just bought my wife a compact Panasonic Lumix though that impresses the hell out of me. It has a Leica lense that goes from 28mm to 398mm and takes pictures every bit good as most any camera, but with just one compact lense. Takes movies as well. It was about $400. This or one like it will be my next job site camera.

Larry

[David Weaver]

I am a fan of the panasonic cameras also if someone doesn't need SLR.

I have an old FZ-3 12x optical leica lens lumix that only takes 3.1mp pictures, but if the resolution is good enough for what I'm doing, they are still better pictures than anything else I've gotten since. In the house, it is "my" camera, everyone else thinks it's clunky and ugly. I don't know how long ago I got it, probably 10 years ago. If it breaks, I will try to get something as similar to it as possible.

[Bill Huber]

Do you really want an interchangeable lens camera? The problem is you will want a telephoto lens and then a close up lens and then a wide angle lens and before you know it you will have a case full of lenses.

There are some really great cameras out there with like 25mm to 600mm that do a great job and you don't have to get more lenses for it. The Panasonic FZ150 is an example of this, great camera and all it all built in.

The Canon ProwerShot SX40 is another example of a great little camera with it all built in, 24mm to 840mm which covers it all.

Go to DPReview and look them all over.

http://www.dpreview.com/products/cameras

[Zach England]

I do think I am set on interchangeable lenses, but I will look into the ones you mention and do a bit of reading when I get a chance. I am really leaning towards the Nikon right now, and am ready to pull the trigger as soon as I get confirmation from the federal government that my tax return is accepted.

Thanks for the opinions and keep them coming. When I get some free time this afternoon I will read up on what people have suggested.

I need another expensive hobby, right?

[Andrew Pitonyak]

The people that I know that own Nikons seem to love them, and the same is true of the people that I konw that own Canon. I am left with the impression that the professionals are more likely to use Canon, but I make that judegement on silly things like looking to see how many sports photographers have those nifty white lenses that Canon makes.

Criteria 1:
I use Canon and I like them very much. I have Canon point and shoot and Canon DSLR. The menus are very similar. So, if you own a Canon point and shoot, or a Nikon point and shoot, you may want to go that route for your DSLR because the base menus are likely similar.

Criteria 2:
What lenses will you purchase (and how well do they integrate with the camera)? At the moment, I own only Canon lenses. I own one lense that cost me about $2000. I chose Canon lenses because I am less likely to need to be concerned with how well things work together. That said, most aftermarket lenses seem to work well when they say so (I owned some in the past) and some are pretty nice. If you consider the lenses that you intend to use that match what you will shoot, then you can buy the camera that will use those lenses. I specifically wanted to be able to take indoor shots without flash, so I wanted my lens to be usable at f2.8 (whic is why they are expensive). If you will not shoot things like indoor weddings or performances where you are not allowed to use flash, you can probably get away with a slower lens.

Criteria 3:
Do you know people with camera gear? if so, what do they use? A friend wanted to try a specific lens that I happened to own, so, he was able to try it for a week.

[Zach England]

I am looking at a Nikon package that has two lenses--a 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 and 55-200mm f/4-5.6. I am mostly interested in shooting still objects, especially me ceramic work indoor. That's easy. I also want to be able take general nature/city/landscape shots and outdoors zoom shots. I don't really have much interest in photographing weddings and such and have no aspirations to ever do anything close to pro photography. I figure those are pretty basic needs and I think those lenses would be a good starting point. Am I on the wrong track?

[Bill Huber]

I do think I am set on interchangeable lenses, but I will look into the ones you mention and do a bit of reading when I get a chance. I am really leaning towards the Nikon right now, and am ready to pull the trigger as soon as I get confirmation from the federal government that my tax return is accepted.

Thanks for the opinions and keep them coming. When I get some free time this afternoon I will read up on what people have suggested.

I need another expensive hobby, right?

You know what they say about clamps, "You never have enough of clamps" well a DSLR is the same, you never have enough lenes.

[Ole Anderson]

Canon T2i, $649 at B&H with the 18-55 lens. Highly recommended, even by the camera shop in Sarasota that only sells Nikon. Oops, I wasn't supposed to say that...

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/675618-REG/Canon_4462B003_EOS_Rebel_T2i_Digital.html

This is where I got my camera, a 18-55 and a 75-300 lens, filter bag and 8 gig Sd card, currently around $750, $100 less than I paid a year ago.

http://www.profeel.com/cameras/pc/Canon-EOS-Rebel-T2i-18-55-+-75-300-Zooms-PRO-KIT-3p533.htm

[Joe Angrisani]

With all due respect to Bill: You are missing the point on dSLRs. It's not about the lenses. It's about the sensor size (physical size, not megapixels) and shutter response time. Larger pixel sites mean cleaner images with greater dynamic range. The sensor in the Panasonic FZ150 is roughly 1/3rd the size of the sensor in a Nikon or Canon dSLR, so you're losing detail, clean high-ISOs, and any control over depth of field. One should also keep in mind that those "all in one" superzoom cameras almost always have electronic viewfinders - a tiny screen that you look at through the eyepiece - and EVFs all suffer from slow refresh rates and a grainy look. Additionally, just about every Panasonic all-in-one, going back years, have had a reputation for soft images (especially at wide angles and longer zoom lengths). Jack of all, master of none, as the old story goes.

Zach.... You can't go wrong with either Nikon or Canon. I shoot Nikon dSLRs because I already have Nikon lenses, and I believe Nikon is better as far as accessing controls (FWIW, I think Canon point and shoots are better, so I'm not "all Nikon all the time). If I had to list a list, I'd say this:

$400? Used D40 with the 18-55 lens. The ultimate budget dSLR. Superb performance to ISO 800, and nice managable file sizes.
$550? New D3100 with the 18-55VR lens. Try Amazon or B&H.
$700? New D3100 with the 18-55VR and 55-200VR lenses. Amazon or B&H.
$800? New D3100 with the 18-55VR and 55-300VR lenses. Again, Amazon or B&H.

[Andrew Pitonyak]

I am looking at a Nikon package that has two lenses--a 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 and 55-200mm f/4-5.6. I am mostly interested in shooting still objects, especially me ceramic work indoor. That's easy. I also want to be able take general nature/city/landscape shots and outdoors zoom shots. I don't really have much interest in photographing weddings and such and have no aspirations to ever do anything close to pro photography. I figure those are pretty basic needs and I think those lenses would be a good starting point. Am I on the wrong track?


I believe that you are looking at a reduced size sensor, so the 18-55mm is a very good range for say wandering around at a party in a house. f/3-5.6 is pretty slow (from my perspective), but for indoor use with good lighting, you will shoot in this range anyway. I shot for years with lenses very similar to what you are quoting (with good effect).

When I train firearms usage, I sometimes hand a student a handgun with a three foot wooden down sticking out the end. I then tell the student to point the gun at a target and hold it steady. The dowel shows very clearly how much that gun is really moving because that movement is magnified over the distance. The same is true for a camera when you are trying to hold that lens still and your arms are tired. When the lens shakes, you need a fast lens. Newer lenses frequently have stabilization circuits built into them so that those shakes are canceled out. This can make a HUGE difference when shooting things that are not moving. Do the lenses have any sort of stabillazation built into them? If not, it is worth spending an extra $100 for this. Note that the shake will be far worse at 200mm than at 55mm, so if only the longer lens has it, call it good and move on. Note that the Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S VR DX NIKKOR has this and rates well, no comment on which lens is included in your kit.

[Dick Latshaw]

To reiterate what Joe said, the all-in-one, do everything, 10 - 600 zoom, point and shoots are the camera equivalent of the ShopSmith.

The Nikon D3200 is due out tomorrow and is supposed to be in the $500 range.

In addition to Amazon and B&H, also look at Adorama, although prices from these three usually are very close.

[Prashun Patel]

I've had a DSLR for a couple years now (Canon Dig Rebel only 6megpix). The quality of my pix are fine. However, in my next camera, I'll be looking for the following features:

1) compact size. Having it marginally smaller and lighter means I'm more apt to take it to events and to leave it on my neck.
2) improved user interface. If the variables (aperture size/speed/etc) are intuitive and quick to navigate and control, I will do it more, which improves the quality of the pictures.

Not saying I have a particular recomendation for you; just look for these features. I think you should get one in yr hands b4 purchasing...

[David Weaver]

They're not as bad as a shopsmith, that's a bit over the top.

It depends on what you are going to do with your pictures. If you're planning on taking pictures for pay, or getting overzealous about the quality of your pictures in minute aspects that nobody else will ever notice, then a DSLR is definitely better, even if just for the sensor size. My sister takes pictures for pay, and would be very unhappy with a panasonic FZ. She'd probably be unhappy with a D3100, too. I don't know what she has, D3 or D4 or something - some single digit number. I don't know what a camera that expensive does and I'd like to never bother myself with finding out.

I have my doubts that most of the people who buy DSLR cameras ever actually use them effectively enough to justify them, but it is definitely the age of the armchair expert buying the best arrows first regardless of how steady the hand and eye of the indian may be. I am as guilty about it as anyone, just not in cameras. And there's really nothing wrong with that, I guess, we have to do whatever pleases us.

I've gotten more use out of my lowly FZ (taking pictures for nobody but me, admittedly) than most people ever get out of a shopsmith, though. That's low!

[Zach England]

What is the d3200 supposed to offer that the d3100 does not? Pixels?

Is that $500 for the body only? My price range is flexible. The package I am leaning towards now is the d3100 with two lenses for $700. I am inclined to go with the d3100 because I played with a friend's a few nights ago and really liked it.

[David Weaver]

Hard to complain about that price, it's about the same range as the high end point and shoot cameras.

[Bill Huber]

With all due respect to Bill: You are missing the point on dSLRs. It's not about the lenses. It's about the sensor size (physical size, not megapixels) and shutter response time. Larger pixel sites mean cleaner images with greater dynamic range. The sensor in the Panasonic FZ150 is roughly 1/3rd the size of the sensor in a Nikon or Canon dSLR, so you're losing detail, clean high-ISOs, and any control over depth of field. One should also keep in mind that those "all in one" superzoom cameras almost always have electronic viewfinders - a tiny screen that you look at through the eyepiece - and EVFs all suffer from slow refresh rates and a grainy look. Additionally, just about every Panasonic all-in-one, going back years, have had a reputation for soft images (especially at wide angles and longer zoom lengths). Jack of all, master of none, as the old story goes.

Zach.... You can't go wrong with either Nikon or Canon. I shoot Nikon dSLRs because I already have Nikon lenses, and I believe Nikon is better as far as accessing controls (FWIW, I think Canon point and shoots are better, so I'm not "all Nikon all the time). If I had to list a list, I'd say this:

$400? Used D40 with the 18-55 lens. The ultimate budget dSLR. Superb performance to ISO 800, and nice managable file sizes.
$550? New D3100 with the 18-55VR lens. Try Amazon or B&H.
$700? New D3100 with the 18-55VR and 55-200VR lenses. Amazon or B&H.
$800? New D3100 with the 18-55VR and 55-300VR lenses. Again, Amazon or B&H.

I am not really missing anything, I have been shooting with a 2 1/4 square, SLR and a DSLR for more years that I want to think about. You are correct but the thing is so many people think that they just have to have a DSLR to take good pictures and they get one and then fine out that it is just to much to mess with and then it gets put on the shelf. I would much rather see someone get a camera and use it. Then when they find they really like shooting and know better what they want, go get a good camera and the lens they need.

You can take the best camera in the world and but a crappy lens on it and it will take crappy pictures so the lens is very important. Most kit lenses are not the best lenses that the company puts out.

Most of the Prosumer cameras of today are very good and have a very wide range of use. EVF are not that bad anymore and the shutter lag is much better then it was a few years ago.

[Zach England]

Unless someone talks me out of it I am going to be ordering the Nikon D3100 with the 18-55 and 55-200 lenses.

[Joe Angrisani]

What is the d3200 supposed to offer that the d3100 does not? Pixels?

Is that $500 for the body only? My price range is flexible. The package I am leaning towards now is the d3100 with two lenses for $700. I am inclined to go with the d3100 because I played with a friend's a few nights ago and really liked it.

The rumoured D3200 is supposed to have more megapixels. Talk is 24MP. Talk is also $699 in a kit with the 18-55VR (The D3100 was $649 with the 18-55VR when it was released). Nikon has never sold the entry-level cameras (D40, D40x, D60, D3000 and D3100) "body only", so don't expect to see the D3200 body-only.

[Andrew Pitonyak]

It's not about the lenses. It's about the sensor size (physical size, not megapixels) and shutter response time.

One of my biggest pet peeves when I move from my DSLR to pretty much anything else (point and shoot, smart phone, etc...) is the lag between when I press the button to take the picture, and when the picture is actually taken. I have to work much harder to get the shoot. As for sensor size, yes, that is why the Canon 5D has pictures that frequently "feel better" than the smaller sensor cameras such as the 30D (that I own).


...so you're losing detail, clean high-ISOs, and any control over depth of field.

Did you know that the smaller sensor has greater depth of field? I did not believe it, so I ran the math. I would need to look at the math to remind myself if there was some other side effect (like reduced field of view).

[Joe Angrisani]

.....Did you know that the smaller sensor has greater depth of field? I did not believe it, so I ran the math.....

That's what I was refering to. With smaller sensors (point & shoots and all-in-ones), it is almost impossible to avoid unlimited depth of field. Even at f/2.8, a small sensor is going to have a depth of field from about 18" to infinity (off the top of my head). Blur the background? Forgetaboutit.

One of the problems with people who claim deep, ancient knowledge because they shot 6x6 medium format since way back when, is that the rules are so very different with digital sensors. The same brain that knows medium format allows creamy backgrounds with a 90mm lens (versus a similarly-framed 50mm lens on a film Nikon/Canon/Olympus/etc) somehow forgets that when the format is a sensor the size of a fingernail, and you're looking through a 4.8mm lens, that infinite depth of field is your only choice. Depth of field is based on the focal length, NOT the film size or sensor size behind it.

The other problem that most old film shooters have trouble with is that diffraction is a MAJOR factor above about f/8. The days of shooting f/16 or f/22 for big depth of field is over. With a 1.5X-1.6X crop sensor like the Nikon and Canon consumer dSLRs have, and the teeny sensor sites that result with these 12MP+ offerings the public demands, diffraction results in soft images and loss of detail above about f/8. Film doesn't have "sites", so diffraction doesn't play into it. But it is a major fact with 12+MP APS sensors and 20+MP full frame sensors. Take an f/16 shot with your fancy 36MP Nikon D800 through your $2500 f/2.8-uberzoom, and you might as well shoot it slightly out of focus.

That's why simple cameras like the 6MP Nikon D40 can produce such amazing prints. Even large prints. It's not the number of pixels, it's the QUALITY of the pixels.

Don't get me wrong. I love film, too. In the last month I've shot a dozen sheets of 4x5 in my large format field monorail, a roll in my Pentax 6x7 medium format, and a roll in my trusty Nikon FE beater. But the rules of film do not apply 100% to digital.

[Larry Whitlow]

As others have said you will do well with either Nikon or Canon. My newest camera is a Nikon mainly because I already have Nikon lenses. If you are looking for a good consumer grade dslr and are leaning towards Nikon, I suggest you take a hard look at the 5100 as well as the 3100. A friend recently purchased the Sony Alpha. Has an electronic viewfinder and very fast. I believe it has received high marks in various reviews. If I were starting out new I would take a hard look at this as well, but I think it is more expensive than the Nikon or Canon consumer grade dslr's.

[Joe Angrisani]

Nikon did in fact announce the D3200 today. 24.2MP CMOS sensor. 1080p HD Video. $699.95 for the body/lens kit (18-55mm VR).

[Kevin W Johnson]

Does the D3100 have the connection for a remote shutter release?

My D5100 does, where my D40x didn't. I wouldn't go back to not having remote shutter release for anything.

Edit: Nikon shows their remote release cable as being compatible with the D3100.

[Joe Angrisani]

Does the D3100 have the connection for a remote shutter release?

My D5100 does, where my D40x didn't. I wouldn't go back to not having remote shutter release for anything....

Your D40x did have remote release. It used the ML-L3 infrared remote release.

The D3100 can use the MC-DC2 corded remote release.

The D3200 can use the MC-DC2 corded remote release, or the ML-L3 infrared remote release.

They all also have a 2 second setting on the self timer, to allow finger-button vibrations to dampen out before the shutter actually released.

Remember... The D40, D40x, D60, D3000, D3100 and D3200 are entry-level cameras. One wouldn't expect them all to do everything and take every accessory that their big brothers do. But they all have ways to get a smooth release on longer exposures if one just reads the Owner's Manual.

[Kevin W Johnson]

Your D40x did have remote release. It used the ML-L3 infrared remote release.

The D3100 can use the MC-DC2 corded remote release.

The D3200 can use the MC-DC2 corded remote release, or the ML-L3 infrared remote release.

They all also have a 2 second setting on the self timer, to allow finger-button vibrations to dampen out before the shutter actually released.

Remember... The D40, D40x, D60, D3000, D3100 and D3200 are entry-level cameras. One wouldn't expect them all to do everything and take every accessory that their big brothers do. But they all have ways to get a smooth release on longer exposures if one just reads the Owner's Manual.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough, or you didn't comprehend my post.

The words "connection" and "release cable" obviously mean i'm talking about the release cable that plugs into the camera. I'm full aware of the fact that the infrared remote worked with my D40x. It however is not as convenient as the release cable in many situations. For starters, every time you turn the camera off, you have to go back in to the settings and change the release mode. I do alot of lightning photography and that is far from convenient.

[Joe Angrisani]

.....I do alot of lightning photography and that is far from convenient.

And beyond the realm of an entry-level camera, as you found out. ;)

Sorry, I was confused. You made no mention of shooting on Bulb or locking the shutter, and I made the old "assume" mistake and thought you were talking about the buggaboo shutter speeds of 1/4 to about 2 seconds where the mirror "thwack" softens image details. The wee remote fills in great as a hands-off cable release in those instances, but it's not a shutter lock. BTW...in an evening of shooting there is no need to power off the camera, so you could save yourself those repeated menu steps when using an ML-L3.

A great trick when shooting long exposures at night is to hold a square of cardboard over the lens as you fire the shutter. Wait about 2 seconds for the vibrations to dampen out, then pull the cardboard away. Whether locking it open on Bulb or running a 30 sec exposure, it's an easy way to get past the shakes. Great way to end the exposure early, too. For when you get the lightning stike in the first few seconds and don't want a possible second superimposed while you go about closing the shutter early.

Have you considered shooting film for your specialty? Stars and night lightning scream "film" to me.

[Kevin W Johnson]

And beyond the realm of an entry-level camera, as you found out. ;)

BTW...in an evening of shooting there is no need to power off the camera, so you could save yourself those repeated menu steps when using an ML-L3.



In those instances I don't, since these cameras "sleep" extremely well. However, during the summer months it's not uncommon for me to keep my D5100 on the tripod ready to go (settings, release, lens, etc) in a moments notice. I learned early on after missing some nice strikes while I was setting up the camera.

My favorite is Bulb, with the release cable, as I have instant and repetitive control over shots and their length.


http://i1060.photobucket.com/albums/t459/polarys425/DSC_0471.jpg

[Dick Latshaw]

Nice shot, Kevin. :)

[Kevin W Johnson]

Nice shot, Kevin. :)

Thanks, I like my lightning and the rush that comes from capturing something that we otherwise only get to see for a brief fraction of a second. My wife isn't as fond about it while I'm capturing it though.

Wonder if Zach has decided on a camera yet?

[Joe Angrisani]

Thanks, I like my lightning and the rush that comes from capturing something that we otherwise only get to see for a brief fraction of a second. My wife isn't as fond about it while I'm capturing it though.

Wonder if Zach has decided on a camera yet?

We don't even get to see it without the freezing eye of the camera, Kevin. We might see the flash, but never the fine filaments you catch. Great shot!

Zach said he was ordering the D3100. Maybe he's sitting by the mailbox!

[Kevin W Johnson]

We had a brief storm here tonight. I managed to get a large lightning strike, just after I missed one because it starting raining and I had to move to shop and shoot from the doorway. This one is a bit bright because of how close it was. Really wish the wife hadn't put the umbrella out yet....

[Darryl Hazen]

Really wish the wife hadn't put the umbrella out yet.... She must have taken the umbrella in. I took the liberty of removing it digitally.
230931

[Kevin W Johnson]

Yeah, I'm still working on that photo. I'd like to tone it down a bit for one. I removed several people from a lighthouse shot I took at Currituck. I had waited forever trying to capture a shot with no one in it, and I finally gave up. I have to go back and look at the original to figure out where I removed people from.

[Jim Becker]

I have the D3100 and really love it. The new D3200 looks to be even better for the same price points that the D3100 sold for...but there may be some outstanding sale prices on the D3100 because of that.

[Zach England]

I ordered the d3100, two lenses, a bag and a tripod. The tripod came today. Talk about cruel.

[Jim Becker]

LOL...yea, getting the tripod first really is cruel!

[Joe Angrisani]

I ordered the d3100, two lenses, a bag and a tripod. The tripod came today. Talk about cruel.

That's tough! When did you order everything?

[Zach England]

Well, I finally got my camera. Sadly I don't have time to play with it because I am scrambling to get my mom's present finished. I am actually doing some woodworking. Weird.

I will be busy with this project tonight and tomorrow, am going to a baseball game Thursday evening and my girlfriend is dragging me camping on Friday, so it may sit in the box until Saturday evening. :(

[Zach England]

So you guys who have Nikon DSLRs...can you tell me which lenses you use? I like my longer zoom len but have concluded the 18-55 mm lens that comes with the standard kit is pretty much crap and I think I am wanting to get a prime lens to supplement the better zoom lens. Thoughts?

[Joe Angrisani]

So you guys who have Nikon DSLRs...can you tell me which lenses you use? I like my longer zoom len but have concluded the 18-55 mm lens that comes with the standard kit is pretty much crap and I think I am wanting to get a prime lens to supplement the better zoom lens. Thoughts?

What makes you say it's crap? Poor performance, or it doesn't fit your shooting style? Optically, the 18-55 should do very well (perhaps slightly better than the 55-200 you like). And as far as apertures go, it's the same as the 55-200 zoom.

Many new photographers tend to zoom in and fill the frame no matter the subject or shot. Be sure to move around to compose the shot different ways. Your feet are one of your most powerful compositional tools. Also, when you're down near the 18mm end, give your images a foreground eyecatcher.

As far as primes go, remember you can only use "AF-S" lenses on the D3100. The first and most common would be the 35mm f/1.8G AF-S lens. This focal length is considered "normal" or middle-of-the-road on DX sensors and is the one I'd suggest. About $200.

There is also the 50mm f1.8G AF-S lens, but that's getting to be more of a short telephoto or portrait lens. About $215.

Before you invest in any prime lens, I'd suggest using blue masking tape to lock your zoom at the focal length in question. Use the 18-55 taped at the 35mm setting to see what Zach's eye thinks about a 35mm prime.

[Zach England]

What makes you say it's crap? Poor performance, or it doesn't fit your shooting style? Optically, the 18-55 should do very well (perhaps slightly better than the 55-200 you like). And as far as apertures go, it's the same as the 55-200 zoom.

Many new photographers tend to zoom in and fill the frame no matter the subject or shot. Be sure to move around to compose the shot different ways. Your feet are one of your most powerful compositional tools. Also, when you're down near the 18mm end, give your images a foreground eyecatcher.

As far as primes go, remember you can only use "AF-S" lenses on the D3100. The first and most common would be the 35mm f/1.8G AF-S lens. This focal length is considered "normal" or middle-of-the-road on DX sensors and is the one I'd suggest. About $200.

There is also the 50mm f1.8G AF-S lens, but that's getting to be more of a short telephoto or portrait lens. About $215.

Before you invest in any prime lens, I'd suggest using blue masking tape to lock your zoom at the focal length in question. Use the 18-55 taped at the 35mm setting to see what Zach's eye thinks about a 35mm prime.


OK, saying it is "pretty much crap" is premature conjecture on my part. It is an opinion partly informed by the general consensus on the internets that kit lenses are not very good and partly informed by empirical judgments on the photographs I have been producing, where similar shots using my two lenses will look more washed out with less color saturation in the shorter lens. I am hoping to find some time tonight to do some more side-by-side comparison and I will try your masking tape trick. The two lenses you mention are the two I am considering buying, mostly for use indoors in still-life situations, especially photographing ceramics.

[Joe Angrisani]

Try the 18-55 at f/8. Shoot Aperture Priority with a little underexposure dialed in (perhaps -0.3EV or -0.7EV).

The 35/1.8G is a great lens. The small aperture lets you isolate your subject a bit when you want, but I've also found it to be super sharp in the f/4 to f/8 range. I honestly think any issues you're having with the 18-55VR are 'beginner's unluck' and learning curve stuff.

Also try bracketing exposures to learn how slight overexposure or underexposure affects colors and shadow details. Even mistakes will teach you something.

[Kevin W Johnson]

The 18-200 AF-S DX lens is a good all around zoom lens. And as Joe said, for a prime lens, the 35/1.8G is a great lens. It's on my list as well as a 10-24mm for it's 109 degree field of view. They make a 10.5 fisheye that has 180 degree FOV, but I don't like the distortion that goes with it.

On a side note, I managed to pick up a perfectly functioning D40x body on ebay for $50 & $10 shipping. The seller had it listed at $300, NON-working, said it wouldn't power on. I sent them a message stating it wasn't a gold nugget, and that functioning bodies could be had for less, and offered $50 being kinda smart. I'm guessing they thought they would "stick me" having to pay for it. I gladly payed for it, knowing I could either fix it, or resell parts from it. It arrived today, body and a completely discharged battery. Installed a charged battery, and it powered right up, takes pictures, functions fine. The battery also took a charge and seems to be ok. Upon checking the exif data of a picture, the body only has 2490 shutter actuations on it, and 30 of those are mine.

[Jim Becker]

This is the lens I use primarily with my D3100--it was purchased for my old D70 while on vacation when another lens bit the bucket. In general, I'm very pleased with it. I keep the kit lens as a backup.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v646/a-j-adopt/lens.jpg

[Zach England]

Do you think that lens fills both roles of the 18-55 and 55-200 that I have? I'd love to have one lens that has both a longer zoom and wider angle.

I am yet to put into practice the advice given here. I hope to find some time this week.

[Kevin W Johnson]

Do you think that lens fills both roles of the 18-55 and 55-200 that I have? I'd love to have one lens that has both a longer zoom and wider angle.

I am yet to put into practice the advice given here. I hope to find some time this week.


That lens will replace the two you have and give you the exact same capabilities in a single lens. If you want a wider angle of view, you have to move to a 10-24mm, 12-24mm, or 10.5mm fisheye lens.

[Joe Angrisani]

Do you think that lens fills both roles of the 18-55 and 55-200 that I have? I'd love to have one lens that has both a longer zoom and wider angle....

It certainly covers the range of both those lenses, but it is a noticably heavier commitment (not to mention a significant price for many). Even though you have to carry two lenses with your 18-55/55-200 kit (when you need the full range), you only ever have one MUCH LIGHTER lens on the camera and around your neck. You don't really notice the weight of the second lens in your knapsack. The only downside is the MINOR inconvenience of swapping lenses. Optically they'll be the same.

I have the 18-200. With a 10-20 and the 35/1.8, it's my travel kit, unless I commit to carrying "the real glass". But that litte ol' 18-55 will be your go-to range for maybe 2/3rds of your shots.

Learn with what you've got. That's my advice for at least your first 3-4 months. Add the 35/1.8G now if you want a large aperture lens. Tell you what: I strongly believe a non-zoom will make you a better photographer. You learn to see what's in a scene, instead of simply cropping from where you're standing.

[Zach England]

OK, thanks. I got the stuff last night to put together a light box setup, so I am excited about that. I hope to have some nice images of my ceramic work up here in a few days.

[Jim Becker]

Do you think that lens fills both roles of the 18-55 and 55-200 that I have? I'd love to have one lens that has both a longer zoom and wider angle.


Yes, it will. As someone already mentioned, it wasn't inexpensive, but I like that it's a relatively compact solution when not zoomed out to the max. As to size...here's the kit 18-55mm lens next to it for comparison. Note that with the DX format, an "18-200mm" is somewhat like having a 50-300mm lens in traditional full-frame 35mm format. For that reason, if you really want to do true wide-angle or macro photography, you'll want to invest in appropriate lenses for that work. This type of lens, however, is really versatile for general, every-day shooting, IMHO.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v646/a-j-adopt/lens1.jpg

[Zach England]

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7222/7324882960_5cb804fdf4_b.jpg
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8160/7324887198_e7df72b69a_b.jpg
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7081/7324890042_752f998517_b.jpg

[Joe Angrisani]

....Note that with the DX format, an "18-200mm" is somewhat like having a 50-300mm lens in traditional full-frame 35mm format....

Actually, the 18-200 is about like a 28-300mm. Moderately wide, but as Jim said, you need something wider for true wide angle. The 18-55mm kit lens is like a mid-range 28-80mm was on film Nikons, and the 55-200 frames like an 80-300 would (for comparison).

The ceramic shots look good, Zach, except for the first being slightly underexposed. What aperture did you shoot them at? #1 and #2 have far rims that are slightly out of focus, and you should be able to get enough depth of field to cover the mugs' diameters. I'm nitpicking - all-in-all, a very nice start.

[Andrew Pitonyak]

Every lens is a compromise.... the question is, what is compromised in the lens that you have or desire. Usually, when you purchase a "prime" lens (a lens with a single focal length, ie, it is not a zoom lens), it is usually very sharp, but you cannot zoom in. A zoom lens allows you to zoom in and out, but it is difficult to have an image that looks great at all the different zoom levels. A zoom lens usually has a sweet spot where it is best and as you move from one extreme to the other (zoom way in or way out) you will usually introduce some defects into the image. Example defects include things such as lack of sharpness, lines bending near the edges, chromatic aberrations, etc.

It is also common for the center of the lens to have the best image and things will increase in defects as you move away from the center.

Most lenses perform differently based on the amount of light. Well, more accurately, based on the aperture. It is typical for the sweet spot to be somewhere between 4 and 10.

That said, all these things differ, so, if you care, just look at some in depth reviews where such things are measured so that you know what to avoid (or to clue you in). In my mind, I think "hey, f/22, everything should be sharp and in focus". The reality may be that at f/22, things are less good than at f/10 so I should shoot there if the image is still fully in focus.

For the most part, you can be sure that the lens would not be released if it would not be sufficient for some particular use. One thing that I like about the cheap stock lens is that it is so light. Makes it easier to do a lot of shooting. After spending an hour with my 80-200 f/2.8 lens, my wrist was screaming for rest; but the images were amazing even though taken in lower light.

Don't stress the need to obtain a new expensive lens unless you are unhappy with the lens that you have. Your images above look very nice. If possible, see if you can find a friend that has the lens of interest. My usual lens is very nice, but I wanted a different one. I borrowed it for a week and decided that with a reduced crop camera, I did not need the other lens, it was just too heavy for the use I had in mind (even if the pictures from the lens were fabulous).

A comment on the images. The entire cup is not in-focus (as in the rear). Often, this is purposely done, and in the case of your images, it looks very nice as is. Some people struggle to achieve this affect.

[Jim Becker]

Actually, the 18-200 is about like a 28-300mm.

Thanks for the correction...I just mis-typed that. :)

[Zach England]

A comment on the images. The entire cup is not in-focus (as in the rear). Often, this is purposely done, and in the case of your images, it looks very nice as is. Some people struggle to achieve this affect.

This is fairly common in the ceramics publications world. I had some where I split the difference in the focus and used a wider aperture and got a pretty well focused shot of the whole cup and I did not like those as much.

More on this later when I have a better grey background and some more time to adjust the lights differently. I am hoping to look at it on Saturday. Yesterday I got a kiln load of bronze/brown/white cups that I really like, so hopefully there will be more photos of those that turn out better. I am really struggling with the reflections on the glossy surfaces. I am going to try moving the lights farther behind the piece and using a darker background. I had some where you could actually see the reflection of the camera lens on the side of the piece.

[Joe Angrisani]

Try stepping back and then zooming in to get the same composition. The depth of field will be the same when you step closer and zoom out, or step further away and zoom in. The picture will look pretty much the same, but it will make reflections of you and the camera shrink and basically disappear.

Generally speaking I'd like a little of the object out of focus, as Andrew said, to show 3-dimensionality. "Artistry wins". But in a product shot, try to keep the whole product in focus.

[Zach England]

Yeah, these aren't product shots. They're technically product shots, since I am going to use them on my etsy store, but when selling off-beat stuff like mine (as opposed to a coffee mug with your name on it!) the artistry of the photography really matters and they should mimic the images you see in publications like CERAMICS MONTHLY. Eventually I'd like to produce some photos that I feel is worthy of submitting to juried competitions, but my work isn't quite there yet, so I have some time.