Digital SLR help

[Jimmy2Feet]

Hi all,

A little advice please. I am by no means a photographer, but i have always loved taking pics at events and when out and about etc. but have only ever had compacts.

So i think time has come for me to experiment a little, and to push the boat out to a DSLR.

I know nothing about them on the whole, just how to roughly use them.

What i am looking for is a good stater camera. something that will help me improve my skills, and learn all the basics of photography on SLR's, but not the large price tag that goes with some of them!!

I have seen the Sony Alpha a200. What do people in the know think?

i have seen a 18-70mm kit lens package for around the £400 mark.

That is the price i think i would like to spend. And the reviews that i have seen so far seem to say that it is a good bet.

I wont be getting it till the new year, and not in a real rush so if people know of new models that are due out that will be worth holding out for again i will be willing to wait.

Cheers in advance.

[grimey121uk]

Plus side with sony is that you can use loads of cheap minolta lens's and it has built in image stabilisation, although it isn't very effective on longer lenses which is when its needed the most

The down side is they are built like crap and aimed at people that want a automatic point and shoot camera which will limit your ability to use it manually due to the awkward control and menus

I would personally stick with canon or nikon

[anna]

To be honest this subject has been covered extensively on this forum.

If you search SLR Im sure you would come up with at least five threads dedicated to the information that you are requesting.

[Jimmy2Feet]

To be honest this subject has been covered extensively on this forum.

If you search SLR Im sure you would come up with at least five threads dedicated to the information that you are requesting.

I am aware of this, and did search prior to poasting, however i found nothing relating to the Sony that my post was asking about in particular, and most the threads that i found are talking through cameras that are at a much higher budget to what i am looking at!

[Jimmy2Feet]

Plus side with sony is that you can use loads of cheap minolta lens's and it has built in image stabilisation, although it isn't very effective on longer lenses which is when its needed the most

The down side is they are built like crap and aimed at people that want a automatic point and shoot camera which will limit your ability to use it manually due to the awkward control and menus

I would personally stick with canon or nikon

Cheers grimey,

After a little (and quick) research on that i have found the Canon EOS 550D. Seems to be quite a lot more camera for the small inc in money.

So would you say probably a better bet than the sony?

[anna]

I am aware of this, and did search prior to poasting, however i found nothing relating to the Sony that my post was asking about in particular, and most the threads that i found are talking through cameras that are at a much higher budget to what i am looking at!

I beg your pardon then.

I would say though that what ever you wish to buy purchase it prior to the VAT hikes in the new year.

The reason why people advise on the Nikon or Canon are because they are the best in the market right now. For a starter photographer they offer you the chance to get used to the camera and how to compose your shots etc, but also when you have learnt that you wont have outgrown the camera, so to speak.

The body of the camera´s are not that expensive compared to the lens´s infront of the camera, most of the bodies now come with a kit lens of 18mm-55mm depending on the camera that you get.

You might want to have a look around at some of the deals that are offered at places like Jessops etc to see if they have a package deal that might suit you.

I am not able to say anything about Sony cameras as I have never used them, I am a Nikon owner and started out knowing next to nothing and have learnt with it and enjoyed every second of it. I know similar stories with Canon owners.

The Nikon D3100 might be in your price range? £475 + kit lens on www.graysofwestminster.co.uk

[grimey121uk]

Cheers grimey,

After a little (and quick) research on that i have found the Canon EOS 550D. Seems to be quite a lot more camera for the small inc in money.

So would you say probably a better bet than the sony?

Yeah, way better.

[flymo]

Cheers grimey,

After a little (and quick) research on that i have found the Canon EOS 550D. Seems to be quite a lot more camera for the small inc in money.

So would you say probably a better bet than the sony?

I have a 550D, its one hell of a camera but I wouldnt have put it in the cheap bracket at nearly £600. The only issue that I found really quickly, and its not a fault of the camera, is that the kit lense is limited for distance shots. A cheaper bridge camera can give you a better range of shots in general that a DSLR with only one small lense but the quality and controlability of the SLR far exceeds the bridge.

I'm adding a telephoto zoom lense at christmas but theres another £350 already!

Great camera though, no doubt about that.

[Jimmy2Feet]

I beg your pardon then.

I would say though that what ever you wish to buy purchase it prior to the VAT hikes in the new year.

The reason why people advise on the Nikon or Cannon are because they are the best in the market right now. For a starter photographer they offer you the chance to get used to the camera and how to compose your shots etc, but also when you have learnt that you wont have outgrown the camera, so to speak.

The body of the camera´s are not that expensive compared to the lens´s infront of the camera, most of the bodies now come with a kit lens of 18mm-55mm depending on the camera that you get.

You might want to have a look around at some of the deals that are offered at places like Jessops etc to see if they have a package deal that might suit you.

I am not able to say anything about Sony cameras as I have never used them, I am a Nikon owner and started out knowing next to nothing and have learnt with it and enjoyed every second of it. I know similar stories with Canonn owners.

The Nikon D3100 might be in your price range? £475 + kit lens on www.greysofwestminster.co.uk (http://www.greysofwestminster.co.uk)

Cheers anna that is really helpfull. i will look at the D3100 as well, not seen anything about that yet. As far as my understanding goes 18-55mm lens kit will be good enough to get started yeah? i havn't yet even started looking into lens' and the differences between!!

i thin kit will still be in the new year that i will end up getting it, as the £12/15 increase in the cost doesn't boter me too much, and i am hopefull of being able to get some deals with more than the £15 off in the sales after xmas.....i hope anyway!!

[flymo]

also, this is a great website for getting started....

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/

and this one for price comparison on equipment...

http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/index.html

[Jimmy2Feet]

I have a 550D, its one hell of a camera but I wouldnt have put it in the cheap bracket at nearly £600. The only issue that I found really quickly, and its not a fault of the camera, is that the kit lense is limited for distance shots. A cheaper bridge camera can give you a better range of shots in general that a DSLR with only one small lense but the quality and controlability of the SLR far exceeds the bridge.

I'm adding a telephoto zoom lense at christmas but theres another £350 already!

Great camera though, no doubt about that.

that is usefull to know. what sort of distance should i be able to do with the kit lens' without any real problems?

[anna]

Cheers anna that is really helpfull. i will look at the D3100 as well, not seen anything about that yet. As far as my understanding goes 18-55mm lens kit will be good enough to get started yeah? i havn't yet even started looking into lens' and the differences between!!

i thin kit will still be in the new year that i will end up getting it, as the £12/15 increase in the cost doesn't boter me too much, and i am hopefull of being able to get some deals with more than the £15 off in the sales after xmas.....i hope anyway!!

The kit lens on either the Nikon or Canon will be ample to get you going.

When you first get the camera you really just want to get out there and shoot, learn how to frame and compose shots.

Then you can build up learning what the camera can do.

Flymo - Kit lens´s on the Canon are known to be okish but not the best out there, you quickly learn what the limitations of your lens´s are and discover what sort of photographer you are.

If you are someone who likes taking landscape photos then your kit will go towards the wider lens´s if you are like myself who likes taking up close photos of the pretty flowers then you will go more the macro lens route. First though you have to find out what sort you are and what you enjoy taking photos of.

Thom Hogan (pretty decent Nikon photographer ;) ) said of the Sony that they make good electrical appliances not great cameras.

[dizzyblonde]

I'm after a Lumix G10, if I can save up the brass.


Although there was a nice Pentax in Currys, marketed at over 600 quid, its got a nice tag of 399 at the moment :)
http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/pentax-k-x-digital-slr-camera-18-55mm-zoom-lens-50-200mm-zoom-lens-03858320-pdt.html

I'm tempted by it, I've always love Pentax cameras got an old 1970s SLR kind of one with loads of lens, which might possibly fit. Plus with this one you get two lenses to play with rather than one.

I found the Sony ones felt rather fragile and cheap in comparison to both the G10 and the Pentax. We have a SOny Cybershot DSC-WX1 compact, and it takes some wonderful snaps, that are a lot better than average, but I feel I have grown out of it and want to delve into photography further

[keith_d]

I'll add another vote for getting a Nikon or a Canon. Both of the big manufacturers offer a huge selection of lenses which can be used on your starter camera and will work just as well when you upgrade to a mid-range camera in future.

The other advantage of Nikon or Canon is that there's lots of second-hand lenses around for them, which can save you quite a bit of money if you're not too worried about shiny and new.

Keith.

[lily]

I'm after a Lumix G10, if I can save up the brass.


Although there was a nice Pentax in Currys, marketed at over 600 quid, its got a nice tag of 399 at the moment :)
http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/pentax-k-x-digital-slr-camera-18-55mm-zoom-lens-50-200mm-zoom-lens-03858320-pdt.html

I'm tempted by it, I've always love Pentax cameras got an old 1970s SLR kind of one with loads of lens, which might possibly fit. Plus with this one you get two lenses to play with rather than one.

I found the Sony ones felt rather fragile and cheap in comparison to both the G10 and the Pentax. We have a SOny Cybershot DSC-WX1 compact, and it takes some wonderful snaps, that are a lot better than average, but I feel I have grown out of it and want to delve into photography further

Lou, the manual pentax lenses from 35mm camera's do fix the digital version... my dad upgraded earlier this year and can use all his lenses along with the two new ones he got.

But to double check, take an old lenses to curry's and tell them you want to try it's fitments

For the original post I have a Nikon D3000 now for a year, haven't found anything that it can't do for me, and I am still very much learning all the functions of it.... another vote for nikon or canon

[TC3]

I would suggest if you go for the Nikon 3100 get the kit that has the 18-105 lens. I have this lens on my D90 and it is very good image quality for a kit lens. It gives you more zoom to play with and you could forget about a longer zoom lens till later down the line. I found the 18-105 a very good zoom range compared to 18-55 or so lens. Spend that lil more and I guarantee you will be pleased you did. Later on you could get more range with a zoom that goes to 300mm. The 18-105 is very versatile and has good performance.

[Ed]

I have a Canon EOS 400D, it was new about 4 years ago I guess, it's a fantastic camera. It came with a bog standard 18 - 55 lens which is OK. I have since added a few additional lenses, a 35 - 105 and a 100 - 300, both second hand from ebay. I usually use the 35 - 105 as it's so flexible.

Canon all the way:D And get a polarising filter:cool:

Edit - have just read TC3's post. Can't comment on Nikon, never owned one, but his comments on lenses are spot on,

[Jimmy2Feet]

cheers all, really good info. looks like a cannon or nikon then. also good help on the lens. i think i may go for a 18 - 105 if i can get a good deal. time for some more comps on different models!

cheers again

[grimey121uk]

cheers all, really good info. looks like a cannon or nikon then. also good help on the lens. i think i may go for a 18 - 105 if i can get a good deal. time for some more comps on different models!

cheers again

Be careful with the 18-105, its one of the worst lenses nikon make in terms of IQ but it does have more range,

I never really understood why canon use a 17-85 and nikon a 18-105 on their "prosumer" range of cameras as both these lenses get beaten hands down by the 18-55 IS from the entry level cameras

Dont take my word for it, check out the reviews

[Filipe M.]

Be careful with the 18-105, its one of the worst lenses nikon make in terms of IQ but it does have more range,

I never really understood why canon use a 17-85 and nikon a 18-105 on their "prosumer" range of cameras as both these lenses get beaten hands down by the 18-55 IS from the entry level cameras

Dont take my word for it, check out the reviews

Are you sure you're not thinking about some other lens? The 18-105 is one of the best kit lenses Nikon has ever made, and it's not just me saying it. Quoting Thom Hogan, "the" guy to listen to on all things Nikon (and not just Nikon):

"For its price, this is actually quite a well rounded lens. The most visible fault for most will be the barrel distortion at 18mm and perhaps some softness in the corners at 18mm and f/3.5. Beyond that, it falls into what I'd call the "very good and no noticeable flaws" range on almost everything."

You can read the rest here (http://www.bythom.com/Nikkor18-105lensreview.htm).

Yes it's a weaker lens at 18 mm than at the rest of the range, maybe weaker than the 18-55 VR, and it does have more distortion throughout - which is expected from an almost 6x zoom that goes from reasonably wide to low-medium telephoto, but it's still a cracking sharp lens, and not very heavy. The plastic mount and lack of true AF override are the main negative points for me.

That said, I replaced both my 18-55 and 18-105 kit lenses with the 16-85, because of those extra 2 mm at the wide end (and the metal mount, VR II, true AF override, and better quality throughout)...

I believe Jambo might have something to say about the Canon 17-85 vs. the 18-55 IS, too...

[Bluefish]

Me not being an expert in these matters, or even a keen amateur, but i tried out the 18-105 lens on the nikon d90 recently and i thought it was brill, just need the funds now, life has conspired against me, yet again otherwise i would have bought it there and then, will have to wait a while longer, it has a wider angle too, which is noticable from the cannon.

[grimey121uk]

Are you sure you're not thinking about some other lens? The 18-105 is one of the best kit lenses Nikon has ever made, and it's not just me saying it. Quoting Thom Hogan, "the" guy to listen to on all things Nikon (and not just Nikon):

"For its price, this is actually quite a well rounded lens. The most visible fault for most will be the barrel distortion at 18mm and perhaps some softness in the corners at 18mm and f/3.5. Beyond that, it falls into what I'd call the "very good and no noticeable flaws" range on almost everything."

You can read the rest here (http://www.bythom.com/Nikkor18-105lensreview.htm).

Yes it's a weaker lens at 18 mm than at the rest of the range, maybe weaker than the 18-55 VR, and it does have more distortion throughout - which is expected from an almost 6x zoom that goes from reasonably wide to low-medium telephoto, but it's still a cracking sharp lens, and not very heavy. The plastic mount and lack of true AF override are the main negative points for me.

That said, I replaced both my 18-55 and 18-105 kit lenses with the 16-85, because of those extra 2 mm at the wide end (and the metal mount, VR II, true AF override, and better quality throughout)...

I believe Jambo might have something to say about the Canon 17-85 vs. the 18-55 IS, too...

Ive never used it in all fairness, i just always hear reviews on how poor it is compared with cheaper 18-55vr


"I prefer both the 18-55mm and 18-55mm VR lenses, which are both sharper and a fraction of the price!"
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18-105mm.htm

[TC3]

Be careful with the 18-105, its one of the worst lenses nikon make in terms of IQ but it does have more range,

I never really understood why canon use a 17-85 and nikon a 18-105 on their "prosumer" range of cameras as both these lenses get beaten hands down by the 18-55 IS from the entry level cameras

Dont take my word for it, check out the reviews

I have plenty of pictures to prove just how good the 18-105 can do. Many on the Nikon dpreview website vouch for the lens.
I would not take anything Ken Rockwell says seriously.....

[Filipe M.]

Ive never used it in all fairness, i just always hear reviews on how poor it is compared with cheaper 18-55vr

"I prefer both the 18-55mm and 18-55mm VR lenses, which are both sharper and a fraction of the price!"
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18-105mm.htm

I have plenty of pictures to prove just how good the 18-105 can do. Many on the Nikon dpreview website vouch for the lens.
I would not take anything Ken Rockwell says seriously.....

Ken Rockwell knows his stuff, but needs to be taken with not just a pinch, but a full pack of salt. He himself admits to being a wind-up merchant most of the times, so I wouldn't recommend his website to people who can't really tell when he's being serious and when he's just trying to stir the pot. That said, he's a good laugh every now and again. He is serious about weight, size and cost considerations though, and in those 3 areas, the both 18-55s are better than the 18-105.

With this, I'm not saying Nikon's 18-55's aren't good (I have both versions, and curiously the one that sees more action nowadays is the non-VR version in Anna's camera, since it's sharper than the VR one and she's annoyingly good at hand-holding the camera at stupid-slow shutters speeds :smt092 ), it's just that the 18-105 is better at pretty much everything except distortion.
Nikon does have a tradition of coughing out pretty cool cheap kit lenses, where they skimp on the build costs, but keep the quality quite reasonable. Check Anna's avatar, for instance. You can't see it very well in here (I'll try and get her to post up the full pic later), but it was taken with one of Nikon's cheapest kit lenses ever, of which there are millions around: the 28-80G f/3.3-5.6 which doesn't even auto-focus on the D60 with which the picture was taken, and manual focusing with it is like trying to wade your way through a bowl of soup while trying to catch a single pea with a blunt toothpick. I simply chose it because the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro we had on the camera at the time was just too long to get the framing she wanted, the 18-55 was too short, and none of our other lenses will focus as close for the field of view she was trying to get. So yes, it's a £40 lens (I've seen some go for less, or just flogged as lens mount covers in F60 and F80s), but who'd tell?

[anna]

As requested...

[Jimmy2Feet]

Hi all,

Been a while since this post went up. But i have been doing shed loads of research on which camera, and i have made my mind up, but wanted to gather the experience of the org one last time.

I know that there is going to be a lot of personal opinion. and that everyone has preferred manufactures etc. but i what i am after, is if there is any specific reason that i should not go for this camera.

I have decided on the Nikon d3100 - with 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S VR DX kit lens (plan to get either the Nikon AF-S 55-200mm or Nikon AF-S 55-300mm in the future to go with instead of a 18-105 kit to start)

Reasons for this choice. is mainly down to such high reviews of the d3000, have ready in many independent reviews both pro and armature that the d300 was the best entry level DSLR. and the 3100 only seems to have improved on that.

Value for money seems to be about as good as it gets with this to be honest.

What are your thoughts?

[Filipe M.]

Well it certainly is better than the D3000 it replaces at pretty much everything, so can't see a reason why you shouldn't (except if you have the money to go one step higher to the D5000 :lol: ).

Enjoy. ;)

[Jimmy2Feet]

Well it certainly is better than the D3000 it replaces at pretty much everything, so can't see a reason why you shouldn't (except if you have the money to go one step higher to the D5000 :lol: ).

Enjoy. ;)

I was looking at the 5000, but to be honest i dont have the money, so i could wait and save up, but i am really keen to get snapping now. i couldn't see what real benefit i (as a new amiture) would get out of the extra money. i was thinking that i would start with the slightly cheaper set up and if as and when my skills (and hopfully income from putting shots on microstock sights etc) increases increase to a overall better set up!

again pro's and con's?

[Filipe M.]

Pros:
- Looks like a "real" camera;
- Shoots like a "real" camera;
- It's smaller than a "real" camera, which leads to...
- It's lighter than a "real" camera;
- Very honest quality for the price;
- Very decent kit lenses;

Cons:
- It's smaller than a "real" camera, which leads to...
- Less weather protection than a "real" camera;
- Less controls on the outside of the body than a "real" camera, means having to faff with menus to change common settings;
- Only one control dial, which leads to more button pressing to change settings;
- No built-in motor for non-AF-S lenses.

TBH the only way you'd get most of these features would be by jumping straight to a D90 / D7000 or higher, and most of them might actually not mean anything to you as an amateur.
And of course by "real" camera I mean any of the Pro group, which everybody wants to have but only a few can justify! :lol:

[Jimmy2Feet]

fine.....i'm sold then, see how many penny's i get for my bday, and top the rest up and a shiney new d3100 will be on its way to me. and here's to lots of nice photoes that i can start selling for lots and lots of money!! lol

Cheers for all that Filipe, was really helpfull.

[Mr Speirs]

Nice choice. The D3100 would be my choice too being a complete noob when it comes to DSLR's. I nearly bought one too then realised I can't really take it everywhere with me and my history of actually bothering to take pictures is poor.
Did a lot of research too and the D3100 seemed to be the best choice (although Canon have some nice ones too but slightly more expensive. Jessops were doing a particulary good deal on it. £469 but you get £40 back from Nikon at the minute so £429.

Hope you enjoy your new camera.

[Viney]

The 500 D is a very good camrea as well and now superseeded by the 550 and worth considering if the extra outlay for the features is worth it over the 500. I did this and in all honesty, the 500 will do everything you need.

[Jimmy2Feet]

Nice choice. The D3100 would be my choice too being a complete noob when it comes to DSLR's. I nearly bought one too then realised I can't really take it everywhere with me and my history of actually bothering to take pictures is poor.
Did a lot of research too and the D3100 seemed to be the best choice (although Canon have some nice ones too but slightly more expensive. Jessops were doing a particulary good deal on it. £469 but you get £40 back from Nikon at the minute so £429.

Hope you enjoy your new camera.

Yeah thats the deal i have seen, Amazon have the same one also, but they have slightly better price on the perfs that i want to get with it as well, SD card, remote, Tripod etc - i was shocked that Amazon were cheaper for camera stuff than one of if not the biggest camera shop in the uk!! but thats the way of modern shopping i suppose!!

[Viney]

Yeah thats the deal i have seen, Amazon have the same one also, but they have slightly better price on the perfs that i want to get with it as well, SD card, remote, Tripod etc - i was shocked that Amazon were cheaper for camera stuff than one of if not the biggest camera shop in the uk!! but thats the way of modern shopping i suppose!!
www.camerabox.co.uk (http://www.camerabox.co.uk) are by far the cheapest and best for online camera stuff. i have bough my last 2 cameras form them. Jessops are silly priced.

[Milky Bar Kid]

V, when I was looking into getting my D5000, Jessops was cheaper than camerabox!

[Milky Bar Kid]

Pros: It's a Nikon....:lol:

Corrected for you Filipe...;)

[Viney]

V, when I was looking into getting my D5000, Jessops was cheaper than camerabox!Ok Ok, once in a while. But when i got my 500D with all the stuff (xtra lens, battery, case, mem card) it was £400 cheaper than Jessops!

[Milky Bar Kid]

I got a bundle from jessops, D5000 camera body, 18-55 VR and cant remember what the other one is, SD card, back and t'was cheaper. You just need to shop around a bit.

I have the added advantage of annoying Anna for advice, who in turn annoys Filipe for me...!

[Filipe M.]

Corrected for you Filipe...;)

:lol:

I got a bundle from jessops, D5000 camera body, 18-55 VR and cant remember what the other one is, SD card, back and t'was cheaper. You just need to shop around a bit.

And now, as Jambo will undoubtedly say, you too smell of wee. :lol:

I have the added advantage of annoying Anna for advice, who in turn annoys Filipe for me...!

:smt021

[Filipe M.]

Corrected for you Filipe...;)

:lol:

I got a bundle from jessops, D5000 camera body, 18-55 VR and cant remember what the other one is, SD card, back and t'was cheaper. You just need to shop around a bit.

And now, as Jambo will undoubtedly say, you too smell of wee. :lol:

I have the added advantage of annoying Anna for advice, who in turn annoys Filipe for me...!

:smt021 :lol:

[Milky Bar Kid]

So good you had to say it twice???

And to be fair, I smelled of wee anyway.....!!

And don't be mean to me or I won't visit and I won't bring my PS3 and GT5 when I do..

[Filipe M.]

Corrected for you Filipe...;)

So good you had to say it twice???

And to be fair, I smelled of wee anyway.....!!

And don't be mean to me or I won't visit and I won't bring my PS3 and GT5 when I do..

Forum hiccup, not my fault! :p And I'm not mean, I just speaks the truth! :lol:

[Jimmy2Feet]

www.camerabox.co.uk (http://www.camerabox.co.uk) are by far the cheapest and best for online camera stuff. i have bough my last 2 cameras form them. Jessops are silly priced.

Cheers for that link, not come accross camerabox before, but Amazon still seem to be the cheapest, not by much, only £20 or so, but £20 non the less!

[TC3]

Amazon also has a very good returns service should anything go wrong with the items.

[Bri w]

I got a bundle from jessops, D5000 camera body, 18-55 VR and cant remember what the other one is, SD card, back and t'was cheaper. You just need to shop around a bit.



Got the same kit. I think the other lens is a ... - 200 Tamron thingy.

I'm not sure what the smell is... could be wee I suppose.

[Milky Bar Kid]

Bri, nope, mines a Nikon 55-200mm VR... they tried to get me to buy a Tamron less too but I thought two was enough to begin with!

[Bri w]

Bri, nope, mines a Nikon 55-200mm VR... they tried to get me to buy a Tamron less too but I thought two was enough to begin with!

Think you got the better deal.

Barb bought me the Adobe Photoshop for my 21st ;). I've managed to turn some good photo's into some really good rubbish.

[Jimmy2Feet]

Bri, nope, mines a Nikon 55-200mm VR... they tried to get me to buy a Tamron less too but I thought two was enough to begin with!

So have you got a 18-55 and a 55-200?

that is what i was planning on doing, but i was talking to someone the other night (not a pro by any stretch of the imagination) but he was saying that he didn't see the point in having 2 lenses and that it would make much more sense getting a 18-200 lens. so you didn't have to keep swapping the lenses out

I was saying tho that the quality would drop if you have one lens to do it all...??

am i right in saying that?

[Filipe M.]

Yup, while being a good walk-around lens, the 18-200 isn't as sharp, has a lot more distortion and is probably twice as expensive as the 18-55 / 55-200 put together... And while it does have a shorter minimum focusing distance than the 55-200, those 200 mm are only 200 mm when shooting at infinity. When you're shooting really close, it'll be more like 120 - 130 mm, so your magnification ratio will suffer, a.k.a, your close ups might not look as close as you'd like them.

There's only so much you can do with optics, and zooms already suffer a lot more than prime (fixed focal length) lenses; the more zooming capability you cram into them, the more they'll have to give up, and the 18-200 is already pulling 11x zoom, whereas the 18-55 and 55-200 are under 4x. There's a reason why pros use primes or "short range" zooms, like 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200... I'd stay with the 18-55 / 55-200 combo for now.

For the record, I mostly use a 16-85 zoom (5x) which is pretty much the same price (and better quality) as the 18-200, and even that one suffers from distortion. Very sharp, though! :cool:

[Jimmy2Feet]

Yup, while being a good walk-around lens, the 18-200 isn't as sharp, has a lot more distortion and is probably twice as expensive as the 18-55 / 55-200 put together... And while it does have a shorter minimum focusing distance than the 55-200, those 200 mm are only 200 mm when shooting at infinity. When you're shooting really close, it'll be more like 120 - 130 mm, so your magnification ratio will suffer, a.k.a, your close ups might not look as close as you'd like them.

There's only so much you can do with optics, and zooms already suffer a lot more than prime (fixed focal length) lenses; the more zooming capability you cram into them, the more they'll have to give up, and the 18-200 is already pulling 11x zoom, whereas the 18-55 and 55-200 are under 4x. There's a reason why pros use primes or "short range" zooms, like 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200... I'd stay with the 18-55 / 55-200 combo for now.

For the record, I mostly use a 16-85 zoom (5x) which is pretty much the same price (and better quality) as the 18-200, and even that one suffers from distortion. Very sharp, though! :cool:


I thort as much. i will stick with the 18-55 kit and then start saving the pennys for the 55-200.

Another quick question. going for a 55-300 am i also right in thinking that the extra wouldn't be all that noticable? and again quality would drop?

[fizzwheel]

Another quick question. going for a 55-300 am i also right in thinking that the extra wouldn't be all that noticable? and again quality would drop?

Depends on the Lens I would have thought. I have a 70-300mm and the quality of pictures that produces even at full zoom, is far superior to the quality of pictures that my 55-200mm used to produce...

[Jimmy2Feet]

Depends on the Lens I would have thought. I have a 70-300mm and the quality of pictures that produces even at full zoom, is far superior to the quality of pictures that my 55-200mm used to produce...


Really, how much did you pay for you 55-300 fizz if you dont mind me asking?

[Filipe M.]

I have the same 70-300 Fizz is talking about and it is a lot better than the "standard" 55-200, build and image quality wise. It also has VR II, which is slightly better than the 55-200's VR system. I think it can be found for £379-399 if you shop around.
It's not the 55-300, though, it's the 70-300.

The 55-300 is a new model, destined to fill the gap (if there was one...) between the 55-200 and 70-300. Unfortunately, it's closer in (lack of) features to the 55-200 and closer in price to the 70-300, which (to me) makes it a bit of an odd choice.
I do get what they were trying to do with it, the 70-300 being a full frame lens is considerably heavier than the 55-200, but it also sports "full" AF-S system, with instant manual focus override, which is something you can't do with the 55-200 / 55-300 without having to move a switch on the lens. That alone is worth the extra price / weight for me, but I can also see how this wouldn't affect a new user and how the extra 100 mm over the 55-200 will be enough to justify the increase in price.

I haven't used it yet though, but IIRC first reports were saying image quality wise it's more or less the same ballpark as the 55-200. As for the effect of those extra 100 mm, let's put it this way: if something would look 1000 px tall on a photo at 200mm, it'll now look 1500 px tall at 300mm. It's not all roses though, a longer focal length will be harder to hand hold and focus tracking will be a lot more difficult (you don't have as much margin to wobble around as your angle of view will be smaller), but the solution to that is simple: back out the zoom and practice some more. :lol:

[fizzwheel]

Really, how much did you pay for you 55-300 fizz if you dont mind me asking?

Its a 70-30mm Nikor VR DX, IIRC I paid £350 for it on special in Jessops but that was 2 1/2 years ago. Last time I looked it was more expensive i.e. aorund the £420 mark...

[Specialone]

Its a 70-30mm Nikor VR DX, IIRC I paid £350 for it on special in Jessops but that was 2 1/2 years ago. Last time I looked it was more expensive i.e. aorund the £420 mark...

I got one beginning of november just gone, reserve and pay in store from jessops price £407.
I think they are £440 now.

[Filipe M.]

Still at £399 on Grays (http://www.graysofwestminster.co.uk), I got mine earlier last year for £379 on Amazon.

[Specialone]

Still at £399 on Grays (http://www.graysofwestminster.co.uk), I got mine earlier last year for £379 on Amazon.

I did find it cheaper online, but i wanted to pick it up from a store and they were the cheapest store local to me.

[Filipe M.]

Its a 70-30mm Nikor VR DX, IIRC I paid £350 for it on special in Jessops but that was 2 1/2 years ago. Last time I looked it was more expensive i.e. aorund the £420 mark...

It's FX, Fizz ;)
The full name for the beast is AF-S NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED VR.

In case everyone's wondering:
AF-S: AutoFocus with ultrasonic SWM (Silent Wave Motor);
G: No aperture ring, aperture needs to be set on body;
IF: Internal Focusing, nothing moves externally as it focus;
ED: Extra Dispersion glass somewhere inside the lens, meaning improved chromatic aberration control;
VR: Vibration Reduction, provides some optical stabilization.

... I need to get a life.:cyclops:

[Bluefish]

so the lenses that are not a g model, you can alter the aperture on the lense, instead of the body?

[Filipe M.]

so the lenses that are not a g model, you can alter the aperture on the lense, instead of the body?

That will depend on the body / lens itself...
If it's a CPU lens (I believe all AF-D lenses are), it'll depend on the body:
Older film bodies (F70, F90x for instance) don't have a way of setting the aperture on the body, so you'll have to set it on the lens, hence G lenses being only half usable on those bodies (S and P modes only, or A and M at fully open aperture).
Newer film and digital bodies will depend on having a custom function that will allow you to set the aperture on the lens itself. As an example, my F100 has it, but the F80, D60 and D90 don't. When the body doesn't have the custom function, you will have to set the lens to it's minimum aperture (f/16 or f/22, usually) and use the dial on the camera to set the desired values.

With non-CPU lens (usually the manual focus AI-S kind, though there are some with CPU), you'll have to do it on the lens on every body, film or digital.

Slightly confusing to explain on a general basis, but quite easy to understand on a case by case basis. HTH.

[fizzwheel]

... I need to get a life.:cyclops:

Ha ha

*points and laughs at the camera geek*

;)

[Bluefish]

Thanks for that Filipe, btw, was reading some reviews on the d90 and one reviewer only gave it a 8 out of 10, even after saying it was brilliant, but the fault was, it didn't explain how to fit the strap to the camera in the manual. How hard can it be lol.

[Filipe M.]

Thanks for that Filipe, btw, was reading some reviews on the d90 and one reviewer only gave it a 8 out of 10, even after saying it was brilliant, but the fault was, it didn't explain how to fit the strap to the camera in the manual. How hard can it be lol.

LOL that was funny. That said, there are a few ways to go about it, and even Nikon seem to show it differently in different camera manuals... go figure! :lol:

[Milky Bar Kid]

LOL that was funny. That said, there are a few ways to go about it, and even Nikon seem to show it differently in different camera manuals... go figure! :lol:

The instructions to fit the strap on mine confused me (funny that eh??) and I ended up just working it out myself!

[Filipe M.]

LOL :lol:

Bring it around when you finally decide to come and visit and I'll fit it correctly for you :p

[Specialone]

I found mine was a pain to fit until i figured it out, but i didnt read the manual to be fair, im a bloke ;)

[Bri w]

The instructions to fit the strap on mine confused me (funny that eh??) and I ended up just working it out myself!

LOL :lol:

Bring it around when you finally decide to come and visit and I'll fit it correctly for you :p

Oh eck! :smt103

I didn't read the manual. Probably explains why the camera faces forward rather than down when I hang it on the wok ------ look like a Tellytubby Dalek.

[Milky Bar Kid]

LOL :lol:

Bring it around when you finally decide to come and visit and I'll fit it correctly for you :p

Tut.

Oh eck! :smt103

I didn't read the manual. Probably explains why the camera faces forward rather than down when I hang it on the wok ------ look like a Tellytubby Dalek.

Yeh, it's supposed to face forward....

[Jimmy2Feet]

So when i get the camera should i start with fitting the strap rather than learning to use it? is it takes longer??!! :p:p

[Jimmy2Feet]

oh and also, that is really good gelp on the lens front. I think i will end up saving up for the 70-300, it looks to be much more value for money. As i was saying to the mate the other day, if you want a camera to be able to take photo's in every scinario, up close when out at a party, a good landscape, or a close up of a flower without carrying other lenses and needing to change them.........get a compact!!! i dont really see why people spend all the money on an SLR and then treat it as a compact.....surley that is not what they are designed for, IMO


Compact = everyday shots of anything to take and then put on the computer only to be looked at once in a blue moon.

SLR = spend time and get the one in a million shot that you can hang on the wall, or if your really lucky sell to pay off some of the credit card that you used to buy all the lenses etc!!! :D

[Filipe M.]

oh and also, that is really good gelp on the lens front. I think i will end up saving up for the 70-300, it looks to be much more value for money. As i was saying to the mate the other day, if you want a camera to be able to take photo's in every scinario, up close when out at a party, a good landscape, or a close up of a flower without carrying other lenses and needing to change them.........get a compact!!! i dont really see why people spend all the money on an SLR and then treat it as a compact.....surley that is not what they are designed for, IMO


Pretty much... if you want a carry anywhere superzoom, get a bridge camera or something like a Panasonic TZ compact. Smaller, lighter, cheaper, and won't stand out as much in a crowd. ;)

[Jimmy2Feet]

Right gone for it,

D3100 with 18-55 kit, case, polorizing filter, tripod, 16gb SD card all for £442 (with a £40 cash back from nikon as purchased before 31st december) just need to save up the pennies and get the 70-300 lens to go with now.

Cheers again for all the help and advice from all the orgers.

[mattSV]

I found mine was a pain to fit until i figured it out, but i didnt read the manual to be fair, im a bloke ;)

Gripfill or Ductape?