beginner advice

Status
Not open for further replies.
had lunch with my old boss today and got onto the topic of cameras, turns out he's looking at the nikon d3200. I was looking at the d3100 so hes trying to convince me its worth the extra for the higher megapixel count and faster burst rate. I'm not convinced. Thoughts?
 


anth said:
had lunch with my old boss today and got onto the topic of cameras, turns out he's looking at the nikon d3200. I was looking at the d3100 so hes trying to convince me its worth the extra for the higher megapixel count and faster burst rate. I'm not convinced. Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Burst rate might be a big deal if you're shooting moving targets. Don't get hung up on megapixels. Unless you're printing bigger than A3 it's a non issue.
 
AB22 Easy Tiger said:
Burst rate might be a big deal if you're shooting moving targets. Don't get hung up on megapixels. Unless you're printing bigger than A3 it's a non issue.
Click to expand...

yea i was thinking about burst rate, but how much difference would there be between 3 and 4 fps in real life? My boss was saying you dont need as good a lens if you have the better sensor. Which kind of make sense but i duno if the price difference would be better spent on a better lens anyway
 
anth said:
yea i was thinking about burst rate, but how much difference would there be between 3 and 4 fps in real life? My boss was saying you dont need as good a lens if you have the better sensor. Which kind of make sense but i duno if the price difference would be better spent on a better lens anyway
Click to expand...

The difference between the 3100,3200 is minimal. I wouldnt get hung up on it at all. For the extra money, you'll not notice much difference.

I'd invest in glass over the body any day of the week. Stick a 50m 1.4 or even the 1.8 on a camera instead of the 18-55 kit lens. You'll sharp see what I mean :lol:
 
anth said:
yea i was thinking about burst rate, but how much difference would there be between 3 and 4 fps in real life? My boss was saying you dont need as good a lens if you have the better sensor. Which kind of make sense but i duno if the price difference would be better spent on a better lens anyway
Click to expand...

He's wrong. Better glass is the key.
 
Got the D3100 :cool: now looking at lenses to go with it. Thinking of just getting the 55-200mm VR one as that can be had for sub £100 off ebay and will get me started. Then saving for the 70-300mm VR which is about £300.

How much effect does the memory card make? ie a cheap one that's quite slow, vs a class 10? Will the class 10 improve the burst rate at all?
 
I have the D3100. I highy recommend the Nikon 35mm 1.8 and the Sigma 70-300. Both very nice and a decent price on Amazon.
 
yea sorry should have made that clearer. was posting off my phone. It is the nikon fit. Going to be using it for sports photography so hopefully should work better than the 18-55 kit lens i got.
 
mackembulldog said:
I thought you said you were a beginner? Thats a canny lens (and a canny price) especially if its f2.8 throughout the range.

Id be a happy beginner with a lens like that
Click to expand...

I am, only had my first SLR for about 2 weeks. But I was at an indoor dog agility show, which is where I will be doing all my photography over the winter, and with the kit lens it was either too dark because of the aperture, or to brighten it up the shutter speed was too slow and the dog was blurred. Defeated the point of having the SLR if it couldn't do what I needed. This lens, while it was expensive wasn't too bad for what it is and will give me the chance to get some cracking shots. Hopefully could start a little business off if I get decent.
 
anth said:
I am, only had my first SLR for about 2 weeks. But I was at an indoor dog agility show, which is where I will be doing all my photography over the winter, and with the kit lens it was either too dark because of the aperture, or to brighten it up the shutter speed was too slow and the dog was blurred. Defeated the point of having the SLR if it couldn't do what I needed. This lens, while it was expensive wasn't too bad for what it is and will give me the chance to get some cracking shots. Hopefully could start a little business off if I get decent.
Click to expand...

I just thought it was quite a large outlay if you hadnt had an SLR before, but I guess it keeps people keen and of course it does the job that I very much doubt a kit lens would do especially if you are shooting indoors.
Ive had my 500D for 2 years now, using the standard 18-55 IS it came with and the 55-250 IS which has served me well for your standard point and shoot using the auto features. Iv enow moved onto manual mode and loving photography even more, so Ill finally start to move onto a couple of 'better' lenses. I'm debating whether to get a cheap nifty fifty prime or stump up for the f1.4 version. I could go on for ages about what lenses I would 'like' but I'm no pro/hardy amateur. (Canon 100mm EF IS USM macro would be nice along with a few L lenses)
If you dont mind me asking, what did you pay for the lens? I'm struggling to justify paying 6 and 700 quid for a lens without upgrading my body first (AB22???)
 
mackembulldog said:
I just thought it was quite a large outlay if you hadnt had an SLR before, but I guess it keeps people keen and of course it does the job that I very much doubt a kit lens would do especially if you are shooting indoors.
Ive had my 500D for 2 years now, using the standard 18-55 IS it came with and the 55-250 IS which has served me well for your standard point and shoot using the auto features. Iv enow moved onto manual mode and loving photography even more, so Ill finally start to move onto a couple of 'better' lenses. I'm debating whether to get a cheap nifty fifty prime or stump up for the f1.4 version. I could go on for ages about what lenses I would 'like' but I'm no pro/hardy amateur. (Canon 100mm EF IS USM macro would be nice along with a few L lenses)
If you dont mind me asking, what did you pay for the lens? I'm struggling to justify paying 6 and 700 quid for a lens without upgrading my body first (AB22???)
Click to expand...

What do you shoot?

The nifty fifty is an incredible lens for the price.
 
mackembulldog said:
If you dont mind me asking, what did you pay for the lens?
Click to expand...

i paid £350 for it, which for how good it is is an absolute bargain. I had the option of getting the Nikon 55-300 which would do nicely for the outdoor events and then when it got to the indoor ones again next winter then buying a lens like this then. But that means buying twice, so since i had the money available i took the plunge. Everywhere i read said your better spending your money on the lens than the body, so I am happy with my setup now.
 
AB22 Easy Tiger said:
What do you shoot?

The nifty fifty is an incredible lens for the price.
Click to expand...

Mainly this little chappy

Logon or register to see this image


But pretty much everything to be honest.. finding a new found love for it, nearly as much as my guitar.

Are you talking about the Canon 1.4 or the 1.8? For £70 brand new I think its a cracking price... although £250 for the 1.4 is it really worth it?
 
mackembulldog said:
Mainly this little chappy

Logon or register to see this image


But pretty much everything to be honest.. finding a new found love for it, nearly as much as my guitar.

Are you talking about the Canon 1.4 or the 1.8? For £70 brand new I think its a cracking price... although £250 for the 1.4 is it really worth it?
Click to expand...

I was talking about the 1.8 - you can't go wrong for the price and it really is a good lens.

That said, I have the 1.4 and it's probably my favourite lens.
 
I've got the 1.8 and it feels cheap and nasty, but it takes some cracking photos. Definitely worth having as that and the 500D will be a lightweight but capable package.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top