nikon d3000 any one got one ? + DSLR general

[barwel1992]

Hi im just about the spend £330 on a d3000 just a few things i would like to know

does any one have one? whats your opinion on it ? good bad points? are NIKON good in general? What are there warranty's like ?

what other stuff would i need ?

i have a 6.5ft tripod already i know i need to budget for a bag, but thats about it i think comes with the usual 18-55 AF/MF lens and i have a 4gb sdhc card

thanks

[the_lone_wolf]

I was looking at Nikon DSLRs back in November, I found Canon's were too small for my grip and the Nikon's more comfortable

If you can stretch as I did you might consider the D5000, it has the CMOS sensor from the higher end D90 model, 720p movie recording and live view, all of which I've used since owning mine

Apart from that you'll probably want a telephoto lens of some sort, I bought a 70-300mm one from Tamron along with the D5000 and it's cheap and cheerful snapping, a little soft at the extreme tele end but apart from that a nice lens, and you can't argue with the price (~£100 vs ~£400 for the Nikon equivalent)

[fizzwheel]

what other stuff would i need ?

Depends what sort of shots you want to get.

Nikon IMHO a decent brand, but also theres little to choose between Canon / Nikon. Not had to claim on the warranty so cant comment on that.

Very happy with my Nikon D40 though.

Its not just about the camera body though, its about the lens you put on the front of it to.

[the_lone_wolf]

Nikon IMHO a decent brand, but also theres little to choose between Canon / Nikon. Not had to claim on the warranty so cant comment on that.

The biggest difference between them is how they feel when you handle them

I'd recommend getting down to your local Jessops or similar and having a play with them, I'd be gutted if I'd ordered the Canon and then realised how much better the Nikon suits my grip...:twisted:

[barwel1992]

cool, i cant stretch to the d5000 (if i could i would) in general it will be used for every day stuff so a bit of every thing.

and have had a play with the 3000 and love the feel in comparison to the eos 20d that i have been playing with

[BBadger]

I own a d40X and if you look at most of the pics from my vfr build they are done on that.

More camera than i ever need and for the price its brilliant..think there still doing £40 cash back which will buy a case and card to boot.
10.2 mp
battery lasts ages
photo size is quite good ( about 2000 on standard from 4gb )
camera is solid and has taken many a bump but still in tip top shape.

[Specialone]

Ive got a d90, its way more advanced than i am, but i was looking at the bigger picture (pardon the pun) as i thought i would get better over time so wouldnt need to upgrade as early.
But as fizz said, the lense can flatter the man, a good lense will make the difference.
Im looking at getting a 300mm lense before the end of year as well as a macro if my budget will allow.

[gettin2dizzy]

Nikon or Canon you can't go wrong. I've got a Canon 400D and it's great. Don't spend a fortune on lenses yet, as you'll not know exactly what you want.

[barwel1992]

cheers guys thats food for thought

[keith_d]

One of my colleagues has recently bought a D3000. His thoughts were:

+ Easy to use
+ Plenty of helpful menus to guide you through setting it up
+ Good results on auto setting

- No auto-focus on older lenses
- AFS lenses are expensive

So it sounds like a good introductory camera, but if he starts using it regularly he'll be upgrading to a D90 within a year or two.

My sister on the other hand bought a D80 about ten years ago and it's still doing all the things she wants from a DSLR. So my recommendation would be to save a bit longer and shop around for a reasonably priced D90.

Just my thoughts,

Keith.

[barwel1992]

another question, i see you can get telephoto lenses that double the zoom of the standard lens and screw on like a UV filter are they any good ?

[Specialone]

One of my colleagues has recently bought a D3000. His thoughts were:

+ Easy to use
+ Plenty of helpful menus to guide you through setting it up
+ Good results on auto setting

- No auto-focus on older lenses
- AFS lenses are expensive

So it sounds like a good introductory camera, but if he starts using it regularly he'll be upgrading to a D90 within a year or two.

My sister on the other hand bought a D80 about ten years ago and it's still doing all the things she wants from a DSLR. So my recommendation would be to save a bit longer and shop around for a reasonably priced D90.

Just my thoughts,

Keith.

I agree and that was my thinking, i didnt wanna upgrade in 2 years time when they have also gone up in price like everything else has.

[kwak zzr]

I am enjoying using my sony alpha model, its as basic as you need it to be and grows with you as you get confident, i dont know how it rates to the other as i just saw it was a good price and brought it online, the 75 - 300mm lense is useful at bike meets.

[fizzwheel]

another question, i see you can get telephoto lenses that double the zoom of the standard lens and screw on like a UV filter are they any good ?

Do you mean a teleconverter like this ?

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/2X-Telephoto-lens-fit-all-Nikon-Digital-Nikkor-zoom-/300438818223?cmd=ViewItem&pt=UK_CamerasPhoto_CameraAccessories_CameraLensesF ilters_JN&hash=item45f38c8daf

Not tried one myself, but at that price, your not that far away from being able to pick up something like a 55-200mm tele lens anyway. Albeit a 2nd hand one. Personally I'd rather have the lens than the converter, you'll get more flexability I would have thought.

Again it depends what you want to shoot pictures of and where you are situated with regard to your subject matter.

Start with the 18-55mm kit lens, OK there are better lenses out there, but for a start lens its pretty good. Certainly good enough to allow you to get to grips with your camera.

Edit - OK this is more money than the teleconverter, but it is a much much better lens and its worth the extra money IMHO. Its a lot more lens for not much more money if you get what I mean.

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/NEW-NIKON-NIKKOR-55-200mm-VR-AFS-DX-ZOOM-LENS-55-200-MM-/170496538659?cmd=ViewItem&pt=UK_CamerasPhoto_CameraAccessories_CameraLensesF ilters_JN&hash=item27b262b823

[barwel1992]

cool, thanks for the input, i think most pics will be of landscapes and stuff like that but also of pics of my bike and close up macro shots and i like messing around in the dark

Fizz the nikon lens you posted looks like a good start, will most likley pay half with the GF as she's got a d5000 on the way to replace the 20d

[keith_d]

another question, i see you can get telephoto lenses that double the zoom of the standard lens and screw on like a UV filter are they any good ?

IMO, Teleconverters have some significant drawbacks when used with a zoom lens but I'm afraid I will have to get a bit technical to explain them.

The main drawback is that a 2x converter magnifies the center quarter of the image to cover the whole sensor. So effectively there is only 1/4 of the light reaching the sensor.

Combine this with the low light gathering power of (affordable) zoom lenses and you can end up with quite long shutter speeds. These tend to mean you get a lot of blurred images unless you are shooting in very bright conditions or have a very sturdy tripod.

From a quality perspective, the big manufacturers (Nikon, Canon) have produced some quite good teleconverters, but they aren't cheap. The quality from the third party manufactures is much more variable.

Again, my opinions.

Keith.

[barwel1992]

^ thanks for that, i get what you mean, might give one a try if its rubbish then i could all ways sent it back

[wyrdness]

Edit - OK this is more money than the teleconverter, but it is a much much better lens and its worth the extra money IMHO. Its a lot more lens for not much more money if you get what I mean.

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/NEW-NIKON-NIKKOR-55-200mm-VR-AFS-DX-ZOOM-LENS-55-200-MM-/170496538659?cmd=ViewItem&pt=UK_CamerasPhoto_CameraAccessories_CameraLensesF ilters_JN&hash=item27b262b823

I've got one of those. It's a lovely lens. The main drawback is that I often need to swap between that and the standard 18-55mm kit lens.

[Filipe M.]

IMO, Teleconverters have some significant drawbacks when used with a zoom lens but I'm afraid I will have to get a bit technical to explain them.

The main drawback is that a 2x converter magnifies the center quarter of the image to cover the whole sensor. So effectively there is only 1/4 of the light reaching the sensor.

Combine this with the low light gathering power of (affordable) zoom lenses and you can end up with quite long shutter speeds. These tend to mean you get a lot of blurred images unless you are shooting in very bright conditions or have a very sturdy tripod.

From a quality perspective, the big manufacturers (Nikon, Canon) have produced some quite good teleconverters, but they aren't cheap. The quality from the third party manufactures is much more variable.

Again, my opinions.

Keith.

The other problem with teleconverters and "slow" (small maximum aperture lenses) is the probability of autofocus not working as it should. Autofocus sensors need light to work with, and Nikon says anything above f/5.6 maximum aperture will be iffy, if not downright unusable. Like Keith said, a 2x teleconverter will rob you of 4x the amount of light, effectively turning your lens into an f/11 maximum aperture lens. If you take into account the light loss within the lens iself, you'll be lucky to have more than t/13 (t-stops measure the amount of light that reaches the sensor instead of geometrical diaphragm area). Way out of autofocusing specs...

Moreover, there are some lenses to which you shouldn't even add the teleconverter because their rear elements (lenses) are too close to the back of the lens, which might make them hit the lens inside the teleconverter, possibly damaging one or both of them.

Anyway, assuming it would be possible to mount the lens to the teleconverter, you'd be left with a 36-110 f/11 lens that is even more unsharp than it was originally. Add to that the fact that kit lenses usually work better around the f/8 mark and you're in for a world of pain.

^ thanks for that, i get what you mean, might give one a try if its rubbish then i could all ways sent it back

Just not even worth it. If you can't stretch your budget, go with the lens Fizz posted before (55-200 VR). If you can stretch it a bit more, then get the 70-300 VR. And then there's always the third party lenses...

Find out what you want to do with your camera first. Then think about glass.

[barwel1992]

thanks, gf got the 5000 today and will stick with the standard lens for now as it seems fine for what i will be doing

[xXBADGERXx]

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond3000/