Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Photography
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-29-2011, 08:04 AM
 
Location: Barrow, Alaska
3,539 posts, read 7,615,203 times
Reputation: 1836

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chilkoot View Post
Congrats PhotogGal!

I have the D5000 and have been very happy with it. Would be much happier if it had 16.2 megapixels like the D5100 though.

Like the D5000 the D5100 has no focus motor so you'll be manually focusing non "AF-S" lenses. Something to consider when shopping for more lenses.
Lets explain that in a bit more detail for PhotogGal's benefit, because her photography is good enough that this might be a significant factor.

One reason to spend a little more money on a D7000 or even consider an older D90 rather than the D5100 model is because the D5100 does not Auto Focus with AF-D lenses. For most folks that want a true entry level camera that is of no significance and they would rather not pay the price to have that feature. The distinction is having a motor built into the body of the camera that can drive the mechanically coupled auto focus mechanism on the older AF-D lenses. (AF-S lenses have the motor build into the lens.)

For beginning photographers, or those whose interest is strictly snapshots, the lower cost of the D5100 body is fine, and they will never consider an AF-D lens anyway.

But for someone who is or wants to be a photographer, AF-D lenses are often quite special! First, because they are older they cost less, so anyone on a budget might want to look, for example, at an 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D lens (maybe $900) rather than the latest 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII ($2400 new). Another example is the recently released 85mm f/1.4G lens, which is significantly more expensive than the older 85mm f/1.4 AF-D version. There are also lenses like the 105mm f/2 DC and the 135mm f/2 DC, which are AF-D lenses that have no AF-S equivalent.

Purchase of just one older AF-D lens saves more money than the cost of a D7000 body over the D5100 body, and of course the D7000 also has other features not available on the D5100.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-29-2011, 08:14 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,735,163 times
Reputation: 12341
IMO, people buying DSLRs are going to be a bit more than the casual snapshooters. Even if they were, they would be perfectly fine with couple of kit AF-S lenses. Someone looking into building a collection of lenses, is going to care for more than snap shots. As I mentioned above, I've started to see manual lenses as a positive, not a negative. Snap on the auto lenses for quick shots, but for deeper involvement and taking your time, the engagement with manual lenses can be pure fun and something that can deliver a sense of personal accomplishment. It can also mean learning and putting to use, such simple but effective tools as hyperfocal distance, back into photography.

Even with enough auto prime and zoom lenses to take casual snap shots with, I am currently shopping to evaluate and potentially have a Pentax (Super Takumar) 35mm lens for walk around photography mounted on my Sony. Ideally, I would like to have the 40mm pancake, but they are rare... having that lens would have my DSLR fit in a pocket of one of my jackets!

Last edited by EinsteinsGhost; 09-29-2011 at 08:25 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2011, 02:05 PM
 
Location: Bellingham, WA
9,726 posts, read 16,688,692 times
Reputation: 14887
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
IMO, people buying DSLRs are going to be a bit more than the casual snapshooters. Even if they were, they would be perfectly fine with couple of kit AF-S lenses. Someone looking into building a collection of lenses, is going to care for more than snap shots. As I mentioned above, I've started to see manual lenses as a positive, not a negative. Snap on the auto lenses for quick shots, but for deeper involvement and taking your time, the engagement with manual lenses can be pure fun and something that can deliver a sense of personal accomplishment. It can also mean learning and putting to use, such simple but effective tools as hyperfocal distance, back into photography.

Even with enough auto prime and zoom lenses to take casual snap shots with, I am currently shopping to evaluate and potentially have a Pentax (Super Takumar) 35mm lens for walk around photography mounted on my Sony. Ideally, I would like to have the 40mm pancake, but they are rare... having that lens would have my DSLR fit in a pocket of one of my jackets!
I'm the same way, and with my old Canon SLR film camera, manually focusing is a joy most of the time. But it's a lot harder for me on my modern DSLR with its smaller viewfinder. I could get around that by moving up to a full-frame DSLR, but the cheapest one that would work with my lenses cost as much as my current body and lens! Maybe someday.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2011, 02:36 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,735,163 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamplight View Post
I'm the same way, and with my old Canon SLR film camera, manually focusing is a joy most of the time. But it's a lot harder for me on my modern DSLR with its smaller viewfinder. I could get around that by moving up to a full-frame DSLR, but the cheapest one that would work with my lenses cost as much as my current body and lens! Maybe someday.
In my case, it is the LiveView that is helping, a lot. It allows for digitally zooming into the subject to almost a 100% crop. My eight year old buddy, Sony F828, also has Live View but it lacks the resolution and brightness, hence not as convenient, being among the first of the cameras to have it. In that case, the Live View automatically zooms into the subject at the turn of the focus ring with MF selected.

Additionally, I have also acquired a custom focus-confirm adaptor for an M42 screw mount lens which appears to work at a minimum aperture of f/5.6, beyond which I adjust manually. The added benefit of having the electronic chip is to be able to utilize image stabilization with these old lenses.

My old film SLR (which I still have) did not give much help with manual focusing. However, an old Hanimex I recently got to play with has an interesting parallex set up in the middle to help with manual focus (as the camera is all manual). Such features make me appreciate the creativity that went on in designing cameras decades ago.

Last edited by EinsteinsGhost; 09-29-2011 at 02:56 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2011, 04:57 PM
 
Location: Bellingham, WA
9,726 posts, read 16,688,692 times
Reputation: 14887
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
In my case, it is the LiveView that is helping, a lot. It allows for digitally zooming into the subject to almost a 100% crop. My eight year old buddy, Sony F828, also has Live View but it lacks the resolution and brightness, hence not as convenient, being among the first of the cameras to have it. In that case, the Live View automatically zooms into the subject at the turn of the focus ring with MF selected.

Additionally, I have also acquired a custom focus-confirm adaptor for an M42 screw mount lens which appears to work at a minimum aperture of f/5.6, beyond which I adjust manually. The added benefit of having the electronic chip is to be able to utilize image stabilization with these old lenses.

My old film SLR (which I still have) did not give much help with manual focusing. However, an old Hanimex I recently got to play with has an interesting parallex set up in the middle to help with manual focus (as the camera is all manual). Such features make me appreciate the creativity that went on in designing cameras decades ago.
This is what my AE1 has as well and it works pretty well for me. My Canonet rangefinder is different, of course, but it works okay for me too, although depending on the subject I sometimes have trouble focusing. I can manually focus my DSLR, but it's not easy for me. If it had a similar focusing screen to the AE1, I think I could use it manually a little more easily.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2011, 07:59 PM
 
Location: Greater Greenville, SC
5,893 posts, read 12,773,284 times
Reputation: 10700
Gee, thanks for the compliment, Floyd!

FYI, guys, I did look at the D7000 and know it's capable of much more than the DSLR I purchased. It's also bigger and heavier and more expensive -- all not good for my personal use (need lighter weight) and my budget. I'm also a lazier photographer than many of you and could care less about the challenge of manually focusing an older, cheaper lens because the D5100 doesn't have an internal focusing motor.

I basically wanted a DSLR because none of the other cameras I've been looking at were going to make me happy. And, while I'm already a little frustrated as things are different on a Nikon from the Canons I'm used to and now I have to learn even more new things, I think I'll be perfectly happy with the D5100 for a long while and won't regret not having upraded.

I understand everything you're saying, and maybe I should want to be stretching myself more, but I don't have the money or the inclination.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2011, 09:39 PM
 
Location: Barrow, Alaska
3,539 posts, read 7,615,203 times
Reputation: 1836
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhotogGal View Post
Gee, thanks for the compliment, Floyd!
Well, it wasn't just gratuitous! I did take a look specifically to see what you had posted in the past, and liked what I saw.

Quote:
FYI, guys, I did look at the D7000 and know it's capable of much more than the DSLR I purchased. It's also bigger and heavier and more expensive -- all not good for my personal use (need lighter weight) and my budget. I'm also a lazier photographer than many of you and could care less about the challenge of manually focusing an older, cheaper lens because the D5100 doesn't have an internal focusing motor.
You've been confused by someone whose religion is to experience the taking of a picture rather than making/having a great photograph! Both are equally valid, but don't confuse them as the same thing.

Manual focusing has nothing to do with it! That's not the road to good photography, though it might well be a great spiritually cleansing path!

The point is that if you don't have a big budget for photography, and cannot afford the most expensive bodies and lenses, then you want to find the most cost effective combination that will accomplish what you want.

Here is an example:

If portrait photography is appealing, there is little doubt that Nikon's two 85mm f/1.4 lenses are the ultimate specialty lens for that purpose. They are great for grabbing shots of your kids, grandchildren, or the dog too for that matter, and Auto Focus is essential!

Perhaps a D700, D3 or D3S body is the ultimate way to go, but they are all budget busters too. But of the entry level cameras, the D7000 can use the older 85mm f/1.4D AF-D lens, but the D3000, D3100, D5000, and D5100 cannot auto focus with that lens, and instead the only effective option is to purchase an 85 f/1.4G AF-S lens.

D7000 + 85mm f/1.4D AF-D
$1200 + $1100 = $2300 for the combination.

D5100 + 85mm f/1.4G AF-S
$ 850 + $1900 = $2750 for the combination.

Which is to say that the D7000 might well be more expensive than the D5100, but if portraits happen to be the ultimate goal, it actually costs less to shoot with the D7000.

That is just one example, and there are several specialty lenses that are available either only in AF-D models or at much lower prices for the AF-D than the AF-S model. Any one of them is sufficient to make the D7000 more cost effective than a D5100.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-30-2011, 05:34 AM
 
Location: "Chicago"
1,866 posts, read 2,839,151 times
Reputation: 870
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd_Davidson View Post
The point is that if you don't have a big budget for photography, and cannot afford the most expensive bodies and lenses, then you want to find the most cost effective combination that will accomplish what you want.
Let her have fun with her D5100 while she's still learning; that's the only way she's going to discover where her needs are when it comes time to buy something new.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-30-2011, 06:37 AM
 
Location: Greater Greenville, SC
5,893 posts, read 12,773,284 times
Reputation: 10700
I really appreciate ALL these responses as I am learning just by reading them. And, Floyd, you are helping me believe that I made the right decision.

1. I do not at all enjoy taking photos of people -- even my own family -- even though I do it from time to time for the annual family calendar the kids make, birthday parties, etc. I resigned a while back as the official family photographer and now will only do it when I feel like it. Already told you about the wedding I hated shooting.

2. I have no aspirations of being a professional photographer, having my own studio, etc.

Maybe if I tell you how I normally shoot and what I like to shoot, you can tell me what best lenses and flash I should be looking at. FYI, I would love to have a macro lens one day but am not sure I have the patience to make proper use of it.

Until I moved to this area, most of my photography was during vacations or at the zoo. I hardly ever shot flowers or nature scenes and have never been much of an outdoor person or able/willing to hike up mountains or wade through streams to shoot a waterfall that wasn't easily accessible. I'm not a morning person so consider myself more of a late afternoon/sunset shooter.

I like the idea of shooting landscapes but probably don't do too much of that. With my SX10 IS, I found myself always shooting closer to the long end of the zoom -- partly because when I am shooting people, I prefer candid shots from a distance, and partly because it's how I did closeups as I could never quite master the macro feature.

So candid photography is an interest of mine. I now enjoy more nature photography since I live in a beautiful area, but I still have physical limitations to deal with and no partner to carry my equipment for me or help me get up a mountain, etc. I also very much enjoy interesting architecture, especially the details.

When I shoot, I like to shoot the whole picture and then zoom around and capture a lot of details. I like to fill the frame but still have difficulty in sometimes not leaving enough space around my subject because I'm not shooting full-frame like I was used to with my film camera. And, especially on vacation, I enjoy a lot of candid and street photography.

As far as people photography, I'm not into portraits. I take fun photos of my grandkids and photos of my friends at birthday parties or joining me in vacation festivities. But serious people pictures? No.

I do need a flash soon and was thinking of the Nikon SB-700. Do you think that would be a good one for my D5100? I know the SB-900 has a better range, but I don't care, and I didn't like some of the reviews I read about it. Is there possibly a cheaper flash that you think might suffice for my needs?

The truth is that I really don't like even using a flash at all but realize there are times when it's necessary and times when I SHOULD have used a flash and chose not to. That's another reason I don't know that I need to invest in the biggest and best.

I feel like I've rambled on too much, but for those of you trying to help me, you now have more info and can perhaps make your recommendations even more pointed. Thanks again for taking the time and sharing your knowledge and experience!

One of the things that getting into photography has taught me is how to see more of this miraculous world God created for our pleasure. And my joy is in sharing what I see through my lens with others. That pretty much sums it up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-30-2011, 07:38 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,735,163 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhotogGal View Post
When I shoot, I like to shoot the whole picture and then zoom around and capture a lot of details. I like to fill the frame but still have difficulty in sometimes not leaving enough space around my subject because I'm not shooting full-frame like I was used to with my film camera. And, especially on vacation, I enjoy a lot of candid and street photography.

As far as people photography, I'm not into portraits. I take fun photos of my grandkids and photos of my friends at birthday parties or joining me in vacation festivities. But serious people pictures? No.
I think you will be very happy with your purchase for a long time. There is no need to overspend and get features you might never care for, while lugging around bulkier equipment. You can start with kit lenses and add to your collection slowly.

Photography can be an expensive hobby. For professional, it is their livelihood, but I would rather take photography with me to places I also want to visit, domestically and internationally, as a hobby. Even with seven lenses at hand, I'm still looking at holes in my lens lineup, three of them actually (a super telephoto, a 1:1 macro of about 100mm focal length and a super wide zoom). That would demand almost $3K!

Quote:
The truth is that I really don't like even using a flash at all but realize there are times when it's necessary and times when I SHOULD have used a flash and chose not to. That's another reason I don't know that I need to invest in the biggest and best.
That is how I am. I almost never use flash, and when I must, I prefer bounce. So I got the basic external flash from Sony for those rare times. I would rather use the savings towards more glass Flash is pretty much useless in landscape photography (and in my case, I have a few cats and dogs to chase around). I don't like using flash in close up photography (insects, flowers) either. I prefer natural lighting/reflections. With these new DSLRs, we can go to ISO1600 without noticing any hint of noise anyway.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Photography

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top