nikon d3000 any one got one ? + DSLR general

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 ?

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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 ?

Do you mean a teleconverter like this ?

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/2X-Telephoto-l...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-NIKK...item27b262b823

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]

Originally Posted by 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 ?

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.

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

Originally Posted by fizzwheel

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-NIKK...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.

Originally Posted by keith_d

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.

Originally Posted by 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

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.

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