# New Camera - Heres hoping....



## Christopher Jones (Feb 17, 2009)

Okay, as most people on this forum would have realised my photography skills suck. However, I have decided to blame these bad photos on my panasonic 5MP digital camera. I have now gone and bough a Nikon D3000 SLR camera with a 18-55 lens. This I believe will now make my photos rock.
Does anyone have any experience with this camera? Is it any good? I went with this over the Cannon, so Im hoping its okay.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Can't say Christpher, I went with the Canon.


----------



## Mike Scheiber (Feb 17, 2008)

Canon here also I'm sure it's fine apples and oranges


----------



## Ben Colbert (Mar 9, 2010)

I bought this camera for my wife for christmast and she loves it. It can be as easy as point and click or as technical as you want to make it.


----------



## Christopher Jones (Feb 17, 2009)

I did like the canon as it came wth a second larger lens with IS for not much more. The dude at the shop said that he thought the pics looked better with the nikon (I know what picture looks better to each eye differers"
He also said that the menu was easier than the canon, and so for noobs it would be easier to follow the menu easer on the nikon. Im wasnt too sure but he may well of been calling me a noob.....


----------



## Melissa Waters (May 12, 2009)

I too went with the Cannon and LOVE my SLR. If you are new to the world of SLRs I can recommend a couple of books that really made taking cool shots right away easy.

The Digital Photography Book (I have volume 1 and 2) - Scott Kelby. These books are not too technical and are structured in a 'if you want to take a photo like this...do this' way. 

Understanding Exposure - Bryan Peterson. I must say I never really understood, aperture, shutter speed and ISO or their relationships to each other until I read this book.

You may also want to look into getting a lens with more zoom capability. I find my 18-55 good for portrait stuff where I can get pretty close to the dogs...but love my 75-300 for regular schutzhund training where I'm shooting from the sidelines.

My only other advice is to shoot, shoot, shoot....you only get better by taking more pictures and trying new settings. 

Happy shooting!

Melissa


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

That lens is for closeup to generally close range. You'll probably want a second lens very soon, that zooms to the equivalent of somewhere in the 200-400mm range.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

What is really nice about digital is you can take all the pictures you want and walk in the housem and look at them. Also, as I understand it. a 400 mm lens is equivilent to a 600 mm when used with digital. Also, with the 55 mm lens when pictures are taken at high resolution, you can do wonders with the photo programs to bring distant things up close.


----------



## Mike Scheiber (Feb 17, 2008)

Melissa Waters said:


> I too went with the Cannon and LOVE my SLR. If you are new to the world of SLRs I can recommend a couple of books that really made taking cool shots right away easy.
> 
> The Digital Photography Book (I have volume 1 and 2) - Scott Kelby. These books are not too technical and are structured in a 'if you want to take a photo like this...do this' way.
> 
> ...


Sounds like a nice camera but Melissa is rite a nice lens/glass will be needed and its prolly going to cost as much if not more than your camera did. Photographers are always changing and upgrading so buying used or reconditioned is a option.
My personal example is my camera and my favorite lens. The camera is a used Canon 40D from craigslist I payed 600.00 dollars for everything in the box a couple of extra batteries and a big fast memory card. I saved over 700.00 on the body batteries and card.
My favorite dog lens is a Canon EF-70-300 IS USM I snapped up also on craigslist for500.00 bucks I saved 300.00 dollars or better on it both in mint perfect condition.
I will say lenses are a bit harder to find a deal on due technology doesn't change as much on lenses as it dose on the bodies.
I hate coughing up money on shit I don't need but would like to have so buying used if I'm able is a great choice for me.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Just get out and use it Christopher. The problem I have with things like cameras is I don't use em enough to get my moneys worth out of them.


----------



## Christopher Jones (Feb 17, 2009)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Just get out and use it Christopher. The problem I have with things like cameras is I don't use em enough to get my moneys worth out of them.


But it looks so nice Don, I dont want to scratch it.......


----------



## Gerry Grimwood (Apr 2, 2007)

This site is pretty good for Nikon info, the guy can be abit harsh though.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3000.htm


----------



## Christopher Jones (Feb 17, 2009)

Gerry Grimwood said:


> This site is pretty good for Nikon info, the guy can be abit harsh though.
> 
> http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3000.htm


Gee thanks for that link Gerry........Oh well, at least I still have an excuse for my shit photos :lol:


----------



## Gerry Grimwood (Apr 2, 2007)

He has some good info for custom settings, if you're taking shots where you have some time you can change settings in the picture control menu to make your picture look like what you see in real time..I'm still working on that :lol: You can have several custom settings for different situations, I don't really like the auto setting on any camera unless I'm at a nude beach and trying to be discreet 8)



> Oh well, at least I still have an excuse for my shit photos


He took a pretty nice still with that camera, he's a geek but he has some good info.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Honestly, I don't see the point of dumping a load of cash into cameras. I've dropped enough cash into film cameras with interchangeable lenses several years back, but my last 5 cameras have been digital single-affixed zoom lens photo/video hybrids.

This pic below was taken today, I reduced it's size to 25% of the original, and reduced the quality _a further 25%_ with JPG compression. If you're shooting for internet presentation, the quality reduction is a must for internet bandwidth concerns, and most cameras are going to be overkill for the quality of detail required anyway.

So then, ISO settings, shutterspeed*, exposure, accurate color representation, lighting, and so forth are going to take precedence, and all preferably through the "auto" feature for myself. The additional versatility of shooting video is nice also.

The cost of this Kodak Z981 was $240, shoots 14MP resolution, a 26X optical zoom (35 mm equivalent: 26-676 mm), with image stabilization, and captures HD (720p) video.


----------



## Faisal Khan (Apr 16, 2009)

Cameras are just like guns, only as good as the person behind them.


----------



## Gerry Grimwood (Apr 2, 2007)

Daryl Ehret said:


> Honestly, I don't see the point of dumping a load of cash into cameras.


Everybody dumps some cash somewhere, you go for those big name dogs right ??


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Ha ha, this one was worth every penny and then some, regardless of his kennel name.  I don't care for all breedings that come from decent kennels, but some pick better matches than others, and can live up to their hype. My next hopefuls will probably be from Vikar and Dollenweise.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

My latest was from "Skočická samota", and most of you probably never heard of that one.


----------



## Gerry Grimwood (Apr 2, 2007)

Daryl Ehret said:


> My latest was from "Skočická samota", and most of you probably never heard of that one.


Au contraire...I had one of those at Starbucks this very morning


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

I see where you've been dumping your money.


----------



## Gerry Grimwood (Apr 2, 2007)

Christopher Jones said:


> Okay, as most people on this forum would have realised my photography skills suck. However, I have decided to blame these bad photos on my panasonic 5MP digital camera. I have now gone and bough a Nikon D3000 SLR camera with a 18-55 lens. This I believe will now make my photos rock.
> Does anyone have any experience with this camera? Is it any good? I went with this over the Cannon, so Im hoping its okay.


Also, I have this lens for sale..I bought a 2.8 similar lens and there is too much overlap between the two for practical use. Original version.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18-200mm-ii.htm


----------



## Anna Kasho (Jan 16, 2008)

I have an older d70s, which performs about the same, or maybe a little worse, as the d3000. I still like it a lot as a good basic camera, and I get good shots with it. I get some good pics with my cell phone camera too. You need to learn how to work the camera you have, learn the basics such as what ISO, shutter speed, f-stop does. Pay attention to lighting, composition, background (art basics). Watch where your focus point is at. And most of all, get out there and shoot A LOT. Digital is wonderful because you get instant feedback. Go play around with the settings, take lots of pics, and learn what gets you the best results.


----------



## Christopher Jones (Feb 17, 2009)

Gerry Grimwood said:


> Also, I have this lens for sale..I bought a 2.8 similar lens and there is too much overlap between the two for practical use. Original version.
> 
> http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18-200mm-ii.htm


So what coin are you looking for it?


----------



## Jim Engel (Nov 14, 2007)

Christopher Jones said:


> .... a Nikon D3000 SLR camera with a 18-55 lens. .......



Wrong lens.

Kind of like buying a $1500 fishing boat and discovering
you need a $2000 outboard to get where you think you
want to go.

I have the Canon system, but Nikon is the gold plated
name and this camera is well regarded.

You probably want a 70 to 300 mm lens or a 70
to 200 mm with the extender. 

One of the things you are going to find out is that fast
focus for action shots means lots of light, and lots of light
means fast, heavy, expensive glass. Think of those huge
white lens barrels you see on the sidelines of football games.

The Canon 70 to 200 f2.8, one of the standard lenses for
the pro sports guys, is about $2500. I think the corresponding
Nikon is more.

It's lots of fun, but a never ending money sink.


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

I have a Canon and of course it came with the 18-55 lens as a pkg.

Everyone has told me I need a better lens and so on, and you better beleive I want one. But...don't be disapponted just yet. You can take some great pictures with that lens until you can afford a bigger/better one!

At least I have been having fun with mine anyways. I have not had the time I wanted to learn all I want to about photography yet...but these cameras have auto functions that makes taking pictures fun right away.

By next year I might be able to get the lens I want, but I am not going to leave my camera on the shelf until then.

I have a friend that has a Nikon with some better glass than I have and it IS really nice.

Just start taking pictures and having fun. I think you will like it!

Edit to say: If you have money, go ahead and buy the better glass for sure! I would.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Christopher, don't let them discourage you talking about the high price of glass. I went back and found some pictures I took when getting ready form the nationals. The first 2 pictures were taken free hand(no tripod) at around 200 yards. The last was about 50 yards. Once downloaded to the computer, they were cropped because the dog was just in a very small portion of the center at 200 yds on the first 2 pictures. Then the resolution was taken down to 75 dpi. The lens was a AF100-400mm promaster that sells for about $400 bucks. That lens when on a digital like yours is equivolent to a 600mm lens. For what I want, it does everything I need. Probably will for you also. At the range these pictures were taken and them purpose they were taken, I had no control over the sun which was in the wrong place also.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

You shoot a 300mm equivalent freehand, you'll probably be alright, and sometimes a 400mm with IS can do the trick, but any more and you'll need a tripod like these "wolf watchers" are using.

If you get a telezoom 300mm or better, make sure it's a fast one if it's for dogsports. I have two different 70-300mm lenses for my 35mm film camera, and one operates (zooms/focuses) at twice the speed the other did, so the other was quite useless to me.


----------



## Ashley Campbell (Jun 21, 2009)

Not to thread-jack, but I'm in the market for a new camera because mine turned up missing...yeah.

I've come down to the point where I don't know if I want a point and shoot or a "good" camera. If it's going to be point and shoot, I'm thinking a Nikon coolpix or the Canon powershot. 
But, if I go get a "good" one I'm thinking a Canon Rebel XSI (digital) - I've read that the new Canon digitals can take the lenses from the 35mm cameras...of which I have an older Canon Rebel 35mm. Anyone know if this is true? I have even the "stalker" lens for the 35mm (70 x 210 zoom lens by Vivitar) but I'd like to know if I can use these lens with the digital?


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

The zoom system on the Promaster I mentioned is manual push pull and can be done quickly and the size is a lot easier to handle plus, I have never had it on a tripod. I do have one but the dogs and myself are moving so the tripod is pretty useless for these situations.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Christopher. what you may find more usefull than a $2500 dollar lens is a hot shoe for rerasonably close shots where the lighting isn't great and you have a dark dog, the flash will add the light needed to make the dog show up. The other thing is a memory card that will hold a lot of pictures for when you are, say, out of town at a tounament. I got a second card that holds about 1600 hi res pictures for when I went to the nationals then it rained every day so I didn't really use the camera. LOL


----------



## Gerry Grimwood (Apr 2, 2007)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Christopher, don't let them discourage you talking about the high price of glass. I went back and found some pictures I took when getting ready form the nationals. The first 2 pictures were taken free hand(no tripod) at around 200 yards. The last was about 50 yards. Once downloaded to the computer, they were cropped because the dog was just in a very small portion of the center at 200 yds on the first 2 pictures. Then the resolution was taken down to 75 dpi. The lens was a AF100-400mm promaster that sells for about $400 bucks. That lens when on a digital like yours is equivolent to a 600mm lens. For what I want, it does everything I need. Probably will for you also. At the range these pictures were taken and them purpose they were taken, I had no control over the sun which was in the wrong place also.


Don, I like your photos but I have to offer another example..this was taken at about 200 ft with a 70-200 2.8 lens, I'm in the early stages of learning how to take pictures so it proably could've been better, if I had cropped in the camera it would really be in your face.

I still like yours because they are nice dogs.

http://i881.photobucket.com/albums/ac13/ggrimwood/_DSC3632.jpg


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Good picture Gerry. I know nothing about taking pictures myself. What does the 2.8 stand for? I also knoiw the lens I have wasn't meant for 200 yard photos but I can make it work. LOL I went to a camera shop and told the owner I wasn't looking for a studio quality picture but I needed range and something I could use quickly because I was shooting dogs on the move. I will have to try this lens in then yard when the light is right but I don't think I can show individual hairs unless I use a tripod........but maybe I can after 5 o'clock.


----------



## Gerry Grimwood (Apr 2, 2007)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Good picture Gerry. I know nothing about taking pictures myself. What does the 2.8 stand for? I also knoiw the lens I have wasn't meant for 200 yard photos but I can make it work. LOL I went to a camera shop and told the owner I wasn't looking for a studio quality picture but I needed range and something I could use quickly because I was shooting dogs on the move. I will have to try this lens in then yard when the light is right but I don't think I can show individual hairs unless I use a tripod........but maybe I can after 5 o'clock.


The 2.8 basically means it makes better use or can make better use of light. The 2.8 lenses are big/heavy lenses. I had to buy a bag to carry mine with the camera attached that looks like I'm climbing the matterhorn 

Like everything else it's give and take.

http://i881.photobucket.com/albums/ac13/ggrimwood/_DSC3548.jpg


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

The 2.8 is the "F-stop", and has to do with diameter of the aperture when it lets in light.










The lower number f2.8 opens the aperture of the lens wider, so that it can allow for a faster shutterspeed. A faster shutterspeed will capture fast action better without blur. A higher number f-stop opens narrower allowing for less light, and requires a longer shutterspeed to compensate for optimal exposure, therefore causing actions to blur in the image. An overwhelming number of sports photographers generally prefer a f2.8 200mm fixed lens, I believe.

But the wider aperture (smaller f-stop) can begin to compromise your depth of field (DOF), so that aside from the subject which is _in focus_, the foreground and background begins to blur or soften (which could very well be the effect you desire). A greater depth of field will bring more of the distance from the subject (before & aft) into sharper detail. The original of the image I posted earlier was f3.2 at 1/400ths of a second, and _lots of depth of field_, which I always prefer, with rare exception.


----------



## Gerry Grimwood (Apr 2, 2007)

Daryl Ehret said:


> The 2.8 is the "F-stop", and has to do with diameter of the aperture when it lets in light.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Photography is a hobby for most people and always will be, everybody is right as long as they're having fun with it.. the rest is just another fight drive conversation.


----------



## Christopher Jones (Feb 17, 2009)

Damm, I just want to point and shoot, and then hopefully get a picture without the dogs pecker sticking out and in focus........
The thing that annoyed me with digital was the speed of taking pics being so slow and focus was annoying.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

I don't know much about digital SLR's, but a faster lens helps with 35mm. So, in a digital, some of the slow speed might be due in part to the CCD processing inside the camera body (which you can do nothing about), as well as in part due to the zoom & focusing speed of the lens? If so, take your camera body into a pro shop, and compare different lenses and their speed _(on your camera)_ before you make a purchase.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Here's what dpreview.com has to say about your camera. A "AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 ED" will give you some serious improvement.



> *Autofocus speed / accuracy*
> The D3000 doesn't offer Live View or video, so AF is phase-detection only, and compatibility is limited to lenses with built-in AF motors. The 11-point AF system of the D3000 is the same as that used in the D5000, and (barring some possible minor tweaks) the D90 too. As mentioned in the introduction to this test, the multi-cam 1000 AF module has been around for a while, and was originally developed for the high-end (and now discontinued) Nikon D200. *With the bundled 18-55mm lens mounted, AF is responsive, but rather languid, although the same goes for all of Nikon's current lenses that use a micro AF-S motor, including the new 50mm f/1.4 G and the 35mm f/1.8 G. With a large aperture, 'professional' lens like the AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 ED attached, the D3000 achieves focus extremely quickly. In fact, with a lens of this caliber, AF speed using the centre point is not noticeably slower than the high-end D300s.*
> 
> In the gallery for this test you'll find a small selection of images taken at a live music performance, which is one of the most challenging environments for any camera. As you can see, the D3000 has acquitted itself very well. AF accuracy with the off-center points is lower in poor light compared to the center point, but we would expect that. What we did not expect was how well the D3000 could track musicians across the AF array in low, rapidly changing light in Area AF mode - certainly well enough to get 5 or 6 picture library-quality images from a 10 minute shoot. Crucially, however, *this kind of performance is only really possible when using a lens with a ring-type AF-S motor, and those don't come cheap.*
> ...


----------

