Printable View
I am really keen to get into photography and I am looking at buying my first SLR.
I am a freelance web designer and believe that not only would I enjoy photography as a hobby, but it would also come in useful as part of my business.
So, im after any hints and tips on how to get started, camera suggestions, or anything else really.
I have been looking at the Nikon D3100, as this also has a built in 'user guide' which seems to be being raved about on various review websites.
Cheers,
Dan
love my 3100, nice piece of kit, still getting used to it a year later tho (not had as much practice as I would like), but theres plenty of folks on this forum willing to give advice on everything photography related.
Give us an idea of type of photography, (Scenery, Wildlife, Portrait, Street etc) and how often you perceive yourself using it (birthdays and holidays or are you planning photography trips?)
pretty sure you will have a few folks opinions (and possibly a heated debate) on the finer points of each camera :)
Thanks for the reply Dareos. Think I will probably just start out with using it for things such as Family events, Holidays, maybe a little bit of scenery thown in their occasionally. Will basically start off as my next step up from a point-and-click, at least until I learn the ropes.
I would like to start using it in a more professional environment, later down the line. I do web design for lots of different types of businesses, from restaurants to physiotherapists to car dealerships. So would like something I could use for anything from close up photo's of food, through to photos of people on the physio's table receiving treatments.
Thanks Again.
You are probably going to get a few replies for Nikon, Canon, Sony etc... I am a Nikon type meself, and I chose, way back when it was D70 Vs 300D by handling both cameras in a shop whilst being effectively blindfold. Both were so similar on paper, but it was the handling that sold me.
On the 3100 specifically, it doesn't have a focus motor, so your lenses will need to have the motor. As for the rest, its a well respected starter camera with a good lens choice, not only from Nikon but also Sigma, Tamron etc (same with Canon and Sony I spose).
As for lenses, the standard 18-70 is a good start, then maybe a 55-300mm, that gives you 18-300mm in just two lenses. You can get primes later as funds and inclination allow.
Let us know how you get on, but do try it in hand in store before buying :)
I would not recommend any one brand - it's irrelevant. Get to a shop and try them all until you find one that fits your hands and whose operation you like. All brands have a great selection of lenses which will suit your purposes and the difference in body image quality is negligable. Other brands also have a user guide.. and even better you can read it without having to turn the camera on and waste the battery (it's called a manual :p )
I'd have said almost irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by kalniel
But it is worth bearing in mind you tie yourself into a brand in terms of original lenses and many accessories, and that what's available varies. For instance, for macro, Canon have a strong edge with the MPE-65 especially when paired with the MT-24 flash. As far as I'm aware, Nikon don't have a direct answer for that, though they do have a macro twin-flash.
Of course, that's getting rather specialised for a starter, but it's just worth bearing in mind that, as you do rather lock yourself in, IF there are any specific needs that you aspire to, consider them before jumping in as it can get VERY expensive to change streams later.
But in general terms, I'd agree, most major makes can fulfil about 99% of most people's needs, and handling is very important.
My only other immediate point is that buying an SLR implies buying lenses etc, albeit perhaps at a later point, so don't just compare the prices of what you buy now, but also the prices of what you might aspire to upgrade to in the near/medium term.
Fair point, but you can go too far down that route as well - if you think you have a need for something so specialised it's not offered by all of the main manufacturers then you would already know about it and probably wouldn't be considering entry level equipment even to start with.
But food photography, physio shots etc. are not terribly specialised - lighting is the key for both of those so investigate lighting setups and whether they are make specific (I would look for a camera with wireless flash control for eg. - but they've been present on most makes of cameras for a while haven't they?)
I'm disappointed, I wanted a full on Canon Vs Nikon flame war, possibly with the Moose popping up with a Sony Bridge camera as an alternative, only to be shouted down by the masses screaming about focal lengths, megapixels and quality of lenses.
I shun your maturity Hexites!
On a more mature note, I have a 35mm lens as well as the standard 18-55 supplied in the kit, no fancier zoom as yet, but its a brilliant lens for those *capture the moment* shots, its fast and clear and im more comfortable taking pics of people with it, than I was with the kit lens. Definitely something I would recommend for the kind of shots where its fairly close up and its easier to move yourself rather than mess with zooms and focussing.
tbh im probably doing it all wrong anyhow :)
Dareos, we know better these days...
There's very little mileage in a flame war now ;)
and yes, perhaps a small prime would be great for those type of shots, but tbh, for the cost, why not get a small bridge cam for those shots too ? A Fuji for example ?
/can of worms opened.Quote:
Originally Posted by g8ina
I can lend you a bigger spoon if the current one isn't adequate?? :D
They're harder to work with lighting setups - the ones that do have wireless controllers often cost more than a DSLR :pQuote:
Originally Posted by g8ina
Thanks for all your replies. Lots of interesting comments (both on this forum and on talkphotography, where I also asked the same question), many of which I had not even thought of.
My initial intention was to go for the D3100 with kit lens, but by the sounds of it I am better off buying a second hand body and a separate lens for my needs (possibly a more expensive lens than I had 1st planned, thanks to the saving from buying a second-hand body). Would most of you agree with that?
Any good places for picking up good second-hand bodies? I would say including lens, I could probably stretch to £400-£500, for now...
London Camera Exchange.
As others have said, the D3100 offers a very low price, but you'd be better off with a second hand older camera, you will have more features, something with an in body lens motor will really enable you to use more lenses.
Alternatively, and this is pure speculation, the K-30 which is released soon, will be £500 by autumn. The reason I'd recommend that is because its got a great sensor (latest generation tech, good in low light compared to the 3100), good build quality (weather sealed, do not do what they do in their pictures of it with a Nikon or Canon prosumer device!), a 100% viewfinder (most don't show 100% in this price bracket), and I'm a ranging pentax fan boy. Half kidding there, but I don't think they get the mention they deserve compared to the big two!
Thanks again for all the replies, they have given me a lot to think about.
Much of the advice so far seems to be split into 2 camps. Every 'newbie' reply has highly recommended the D3100, but the more seasoned Pro's recommend going for a second-hand, more advanced camera.
I went to Jessops over the weekend and had a play with the D3100 and really liked the look and feel, and it fits into my budget perfectly, but am I going to regret going for this camera a year or so down the line?
What are the main drawbacks of this camera, compared to say the Canon 60D or the 550D?
Is the lack of a focus motor a big issue?
Sony make the sensors for nikon so you may want to look at the 580 or A55 which would be a bit cheaper but have the same sensor