Nikon d3100

[Alexx]

http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/nikon-d3100-digital-slr-camera-with-18-55mm-zoom-lens-07685659-pdt.html

i'm looking at this camera, and there's some clever camera people on here so I was just wondering if this will produce good photos for

- Trips for WDW and other places
- Concerts (where there will be low light)
- Getting into photography (going to classes and learning how to properly use it)

 

[DVC Mike]

I think the Nikon D3100 is an excellent DSLR for a novice or amateur photographer.

 

[wdwmagic]

Definitely a good choice to get started. I would suggest though that it might be worth skipping the kit lens and getting something with a F2.8 aperture. You mention low light photography, and this will certainly help with getting more light into the lens and giving you more flexibility for concerts and all over WDW. Eventually you'll probably want to go to something like f1.4, but the f2.8 is available in a number of zooms which makes it a great single lens choice to get started.

 

[Tybee]

I've had my eye on this model for a while as well. Mrs. Santa has tipped her hand that it may be on the way just in time for our trip in January. I'll save the lens choice and other technical questions for dpreview.com, but welcome any advice.

Some Disney-specific DSLR questions: Any tips for toting them around the parks? Suggestions for cases? Should I be concerned about taking the camera on rides (my wife is concerned the jostling will damage the optics/internals)?

 

[wdwmagic]

I've had my eye on this model for a while as well. Mrs. Santa has tipped her hand that it may be on the way just in time for our trip in January. I'll save the lens choice and other technical questions for dpreview.com, but welcome any advice.

Some Disney-specific DSLR questions: Any tips for toting them around the parks? Suggestions for cases? Should I be concerned about taking the camera on rides (my wife is concerned the jostling will damage the optics/internals)?

I've taken a number of SLRs and video cameras on pretty much every ride at WDW with no ill effects. Obviously taking a camera on rides does present a higher drop possibility, or other mishap, but assuming you don't drop it, or have a problem, the actual rides themselves are not harmful.

Enjoy the camera!

 

[ddbowdoin]

This camera is OK, a great starter but there is a 100% chance you'll be looking to upgrade soon after. It's a nice starter body but to me, and IMHO, it feels light and cheap. Personally, I'd save longer and go with at minimum a D90.

 

[ddbowdoin]

I've had my eye on this model for a while as well. Mrs. Santa has tipped her hand that it may be on the way just in time for our trip in January. I'll save the lens choice and other technical questions for dpreview.com, but welcome any advice.

Some Disney-specific DSLR questions: Any tips for toting them around the parks? Suggestions for cases? Should I be concerned about taking the camera on rides (my wife is concerned the jostling will damage the optics/internals)?

yes, on rides don't be the one to put both hands in the air and let the camera go free on your strap. One hand firmly on the body, the other waving crazy on thrill rides.

 

[Tybee]

I have no plans to have it out on rides (at least not on the roller coasters). It will be safely ensconced in its case.

This camera is OK, a great starter but there is a 100% chance you'll be looking to upgrade soon after. It's a nice starter body but to me, and IMHO, it feels light and cheap. Personally, I'd save longer and go with at minimum a D90.

I know what you mean. I've had my eye on the D90 for a couple of years now, right up until the D3100 came along. But here's what edged me toward the latter:

1) While the D90 has scads of great features over the D3100, the D3100 has a bigger, better sensor. As nice as the D90 is, it's almost 3 years old now, and DSLR technology has come a long way in that time. This is one key area where it shows.
2) I have *SOME* SLR knowledge (I worked in a camera store for about 6 months -- albeit 9 years ago), but very little practical experience, and my wife has none. So we both need a camera that is going to be tolerant of our inexperience. The guide mode on the D3100 seems ideal for learning the shooting basics.
3) Similarly, while I'm comfortable with the heft of the D90, my wife would need something lighter. It's a catch 22 for me because while I'd actually favor a heavier camera for shooting (holding both in the store, I favored the D90), I'd certainly prefer lugging the lighter D3100 around the other 95% of the time. Thus, I'm erring on the side of portability.

I have no doubt I will want to upgrade the body within two or three years. But by that time, I'll actually have enough skill under my belt to warrant something like the D7000 (or its successor).

Making my way through "Understanding Exposure" as we speak.

 

[ddbowdoin]

I have no plans to have it out on rides (at least not on the roller coasters). It will be safely ensconced in its case.



I know what you mean. I've had my eye on the D90 for a couple of years now, right up until the D3100 came along. But here's what edged me toward the latter:

1) While the D90 has scads of great features over the D3100, the D3100 has a bigger, better sensor. As nice as the D90 is, it's almost 3 years old now, and DSLR technology has come a long way in that time. This is one key area where it shows.
2) I have *SOME* SLR knowledge (I worked in a camera store for about 6 months -- albeit 9 years ago), but very little practical experience, and my wife has none. So we both need a camera that is going to be tolerant of our inexperience. The guide mode on the D3100 seems ideal for learning the shooting basics.
3) Similarly, while I'm comfortable with the heft of the D90, my wife would need something lighter. It's a catch 22 for me because while I'd actually favor a heavier camera for shooting (holding both in the store, I favored the D90), I'd certainly prefer lugging the lighter D3100 around the other 95% of the time. Thus, I'm erring on the side of portability.

I have no doubt I will want to upgrade the body within two or three years. But by that time, I'll actually have enough skill under my belt to warrant something like the D7000 (or its successor).

Making my way through "Understanding Exposure" as we speak.

controversial topic, but worry about composition and creativity of your shots... show RAW and process exposure, saturation, etc etc etc post production rather than trying to nail everything perfectly on site shooting in JPEG fine.

 

[ddbowdoin]

I have no plans to have it out on rides (at least not on the roller coasters). It will be safely ensconced in its case.



I know what you mean. I've had my eye on the D90 for a couple of years now, right up until the D3100 came along. But here's what edged me toward the latter:

1) While the D90 has scads of great features over the D3100, the D3100 has a bigger, better sensor. As nice as the D90 is, it's almost 3 years old now, and DSLR technology has come a long way in that time. This is one key area where it shows.
2) I have *SOME* SLR knowledge (I worked in a camera store for about 6 months -- albeit 9 years ago), but very little practical experience, and my wife has none. So we both need a camera that is going to be tolerant of our inexperience. The guide mode on the D3100 seems ideal for learning the shooting basics.
3) Similarly, while I'm comfortable with the heft of the D90, my wife would need something lighter. It's a catch 22 for me because while I'd actually favor a heavier camera for shooting (holding both in the store, I favored the D90), I'd certainly prefer lugging the lighter D3100 around the other 95% of the time. Thus, I'm erring on the side of portability.

I have no doubt I will want to upgrade the body within two or three years. But by that time, I'll actually have enough skill under my belt to warrant something like the D7000 (or its successor).

Making my way through "Understanding Exposure" as we speak.

a small note on sensor quality... especially MP stats, its a moot point for 99% of users. You won't see the difference between a 10 and a 14-17mp in prints 8X10 and under. These issues are important for anyone looking to print for more art purposes, large scale and hence they shouldnt even be shooting w an SLR to begin with and should focus their attention to medium and full format cameras. Its a marketing ploy.

 

[Tybee]

a small note on sensor quality... especially MP stats, its a moot point for 99% of users. You won't see the difference between a 10 and a 14-17mp in prints 8X10 and under. These issues are important for anyone looking to print for more art purposes, large scale and hence they shouldnt even be shooting w an SLR to begin with and should focus their attention to medium and full format cameras. Its a marketing ploy.

Oh, I learned how pointless MP stats were way back at that camera shop. I also understand that, past a certain point, higher resolution can actually be a drawback, slowing down processing and ensuring your card fills up faster. But as I understand it, a bigger, better sensor yields many more benefits than simply higher resolution (which may help explain why the D3100 reportedly does so well at high ISOs).

 

[ddbowdoin]

I want an FX camera... but I just dropped 600 on a new DX lens and that ultimately ties me into the DX world for at least another 3 years until I have enough cash to pony up for something serious.

 

[wdwmagic]

a small note on sensor quality... especially MP stats, its a moot point for 99% of users. You won't see the difference between a 10 and a 14-17mp in prints 8X10 and under. These issues are important for anyone looking to print for more art purposes, large scale and hence they shouldnt even be shooting w an SLR to begin with and should focus their attention to medium and full format cameras. Its a marketing ploy.

I know where you are coming from with the marketing ploy etc. BUT, I do see a genuine use of high MP for cropping purposes. With a 17mp you can get a very tight crop, and still end up with something that can be printed or displayed digitally with high quality. Start cropping on a 10mp and you rapidly run out of pixel and end up with a 3mp image.

 

[ddbowdoin]

I know where you are coming from with the marketing ploy etc. BUT, I do see a genuine use of high MP for cropping purposes. With a 17mp you can get a very tight crop, and still end up with something that can be printed or displayed digitally with high quality. Start cropping on a 10mp and you rapidly run out of pixel and end up with a 3mp image.

very true... I typically don't crop though, especially lacking a solid zoom lense... I'm usually tight on what I want or I realize I can't get it with what I have.

 

[NowInc]

I have both a D3100 and a D7000, and I can say the D3100 is a great starter kit. I also say invest in the 35mm f1.8 (its like 200 bucks or less)...as it will allow for some GREAT shots and can go wide open which makes low light easier (which low light is a limitation of the D3100..even at higher ISOs..thus why I also own a D7000).

*edit cuz I forgot something*

Also..if you want a pretty decent zoom/macro lens to replace the kit one (the kit one isnt BAD per-say..but has limits)..go for the Tamron AF70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di LD Macro. Its 150 on amazon now I think.

 

[ddbowdoin]

I have both a D3100 and a D7000, and I can say the D3100 is a great starter kit. I also say invest in the 35mm f1.8 (its like 200 bucks or less)...as it will allow for some GREAT shots and can go wide open which makes low light easier (which low light is a limitation of the D3100..even at higher ISOs..thus why I also own a D7000).

*edit cuz I forgot something*

Also..if you want a pretty decent zoom/macro lens to replace the kit one (the kit one isnt BAD per-say..but has limits)..go for the Tamron AF70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di LD Macro. Its 150 on amazon now I think.

eh, Tamron? Performance wise they are definitely in last place. I don't mind that at all, because theyre a lot cheaper than even Sigma but the build quality on Tamrons is royale garbage...

 

[NowInc]

eh, Tamron? Performance wise they are definitely in last place. I don't mind that at all, because theyre a lot cheaper than even Sigma but the build quality on Tamrons is royale garbage...

You get what you pay for indeed..but for a starter...I'd say its good to learn from cheap glass instead of investing in a Sigma or Nikor and end up "not getting it".

 

[ddbowdoin]

yeah.... I agree. I implement that train of thought all the time. My recent purchase of a Tokina 11-16mm was compared to Nikkor Pro 12-24mm with a 1200 price tag! The Tokina doesn't have the performance of that pro lense but for only 599, major difference. My friends think I am insane... they don't understand how someone can spend 600 dollars on a lens alone when their P&S are only 135 bucks... oh well

 

[Tybee]

I actually had the Nikon 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S DX ED VR recommended to me as an optimal all-purpose lens. I'd be able to afford that a lot sooner if I got the d3100 than if I got the d90, and could of course carry it over to my next body. Not sure if it's eligible for that $200 - $300 lens discount Amazon is offering with a Nikon DSLR purchases right now, but I'm guessing it isn't.

 

[NowInc]

I actually had the Nikon 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S DX ED VR recommended to me as an optimal all-purpose lens. I'd be able to afford that a lot sooner if I got the d3100 than if I got the d90, and could of course carry it over to my next body. Not sure if it's eligible for that $200 - $300 lens discount Amazon is offering with a Nikon DSLR purchases right now, but I'm guessing it isn't.

But then you are going to REALLY see the limits of the D3100. Its a great starter camera (leaps and bounds better than the D3100 and slightly better than the D5000), but put some really nice glass on it and you'll be wishing for a better body instead that has a better sensor. Personally I'm anxious for the rumored D400.