Upgrading my camera??

[Sheryl]

As most of you know I've been photographing with a Kodak digital point and shoot camera. I am so ready to make a move up to a better camera. I mostly shoot landscapes. In the future I may want to include wildlife. I've been checking out 2 cameras. The Nikon P7000 and the Nikon D3100. I'm having a difficult time choosing between the two. I'm on a fairly tight budget so that is a consideration. But I find both of these to be affordable. Do I want to get the D3100 with the 18-55vr lens and save to get a better lens later or do I want to start with the P7000 and then later move up to a dSLR? Or should I choose something totally different? Any opinions or suggestions will be very much appreciated. Please if you have any questions for me feel free to ask.
   Thanks,
  Sheryl
       

[shooters_desire]

Sheryl this looks like it will solve all your problems. Check it out, I'm impressed. You might find one locally as well. If not Aderama has one for you. Plus money left ovewr to get a good sd card & Tripod
http://www.adorama.com/IFJFPHS20.html?utm_term=Other&utm_medium=Shopping%20Site&utm_campaign=Other&utm_source=gbase

[Sheryl]

This one sounds fantastic! I think it has everything I'm looking for in a camera. Thanks so much for finding it for me! Its a Fuji film fine pix H520EXR with 24mm-720. AND its in my price range. This may be the one. I hope anyone reading this will look up the link and give me their opinion.

[shooters_desire]

http://www.bestpriceforsale.net/fujifilm-finepix-hs20-16-mp-digital-camera-best-price-for-sale/

[Seven_Wishes]

It’s predecessor had good user and tech reviews... As well as reading the tech reviews/specs ( http://www.dpreview.com/news/1101/11010513fujifilmhs20exr.asp  ) try find some user reviews, after all these are the ones that use the camera in the real world.

The lens will cover nearly every eventuality, but this could be its biggest draw back, packing so much in between wide angle and ultra zoom will bound to have some trade off in image quality.

It’s as close as you will probably get to a DSLR without actually buying one ... It will be a good introduction to many of the features you would expect to find on a DSLR and would make a good learning tool if you are not familiar with using aperture, shutter speeds, ISO, exposure compensation and such likes. Compare features like for like with the D3100.

Generally speaking Fuji make good cameras in this specific field.

[Harry7mc]

I would also consider the Fuji,
 My first proper step into digital was via a Fuji 603 bridge camera It was/is a super camera to use.
Fuji have always produced good Optics so I think the Latest should be OK.
ps I still have a 9600 that is good to carry around
 handle it at adealers if you can.

[BigAl]

I had a look at the spec for the FinePix HS20EXR and could not find anything to fault. For many photographers who are stepping up from the simple point-and-shoot camera, this could be the way to go.

On the plus side you have performance and range of features. For a similar priced DSLR you would have to trade off the goodies to get the ability to swap lenses.

When you move up in the camera standards you have to be prepared to spend mega-bucks if you're really serious about the hobby.

[RockArea]

Hi Sheryl

You’ve posed a well thought out question on whether to buy a budget DSLR or a well specced compact with lots of excellent features. Now there’s also the suggestion of a bridge camera which seems to come with all the features you’re looking for in one hit.

First off – the Nikon D3100. This is an entry level model but comes from a highly respected manufacturer. The body has all the features you need at this stage and it could be a good few years before you feel the need to upgrade it. As far as lenses go there are four choices, you can buy it as a kit with the 18-55VR lens or for a bit more money you can get it with 2 lenses an 18-55 VR + 55-200 VR or with and 18-55 VR + 55 -300 VR.  The fourth option is to buy the body only and match it with a lens of your choice, a Sigma 18-200 or 18-250 with optical stabilizer, which are frequently thought of as good budget all round performers. Another option is the Tamron 18-270 VR which in my experience is a good all rounder although none of these perform quite as well as the Nikon lenses. With a DSLR you’re buying into a brand and if you spend wisely on lenses, they’ll still be useful to you even when you do feel it necessary to upgrade to a better body.

The Nikon P7000 – This is probably the best of the current super compact with an excellent spec. My brother has recently bought one (his other camera is a D200 which is a fine pro/semi pro camera so he’s used to quality). Although as I said the spec is very high, with all compacts it requires a lot of delving in menus to set up particular features and this results for most people in these features not getting used. Even so you have a quality camera with a zoom range between 28 and 200mm. All compacts struggle to get those shallow depth of field shots (sharp with the background blurred) that are so useful in portrait shooting.

The Fujifilm HS20EXR -  Wow, what a spec 24 – 720 lens. It looks like this camera will do everything you’d ever need. My question is – will it. I’ve always been impressed with Fujifilm cameras, I’ve had (still do have) a couple of compacts and always found them very good and very reliable but they’re not ‘the best’.

Drawbacks 24mm is not very wide for a landscape photographer, I’d want an 18mm wide angle at the least. 720mm is a 30x zoom, I wonder how useable it will be in the field as that front lens doesn’t look big enough to draw enough light except at extremely long exposures and I’m not convinced that the small CMOS sensor will be able to manage without producing high noise levels.

I’d want to read a full review of this, at the moment only press releases seem to be available. I’d worry that this does everything but does nothing very well.

It’s a tough one, Sheryl, and only you can decide. I’d say don’t be beguiled by the Fuji gloss, it might be a good choice for you but I’m not sure. The P7000 is a good little performer and might be just what you need, but will it restrict your ambitions.

The Nikon P3100 seems modest compared to the other two cameras but in many ways it might be the best bet. The camera body itself is quality kit and even though it is entry level, it has lots of automatic features to start you off and lots of options for getting into manual and semi automatic modes which is where real photography starts, in my opinion. I think a DSLR like this is a great starting place. You will probably want to add different lenses for macro work, ultra wide angle for landscapes and telephoto for wildlife and those will take some saving up for so it’s a bit like a gold charm bracelet. It starts off good but minimal but can end up as a stunning piece of cargo!

Good luck with your decision!

David

[Harry7mc]

The standard 18/ 55 or 18 105 nikors will relate because of the sensor crop to 28mm, at the wide end.
This should be taken into account when making you choice.

[RockArea]

I think all of the figures given so far have been 35mm equivalent, Harry, which is the usual way of quoting lens range these days.

David

[Sheryl]

Seven-Wishes, good idea to read some reviews on these cameras. But like you said the Fuji is brand new and will have no reviews. Thanks Harry for your imput as well. And to Big Al I appreciate you viewing the link for the Fuji. David , you've given me loads to consider and now I am having doubts about the Fuji. Maybe it would be better to just go with the D3100. I know it would be a good camera body and I can get started with the lens it comes with until I can afford more lenses. Like Big Al mentioned you have to be willing to spend some $ if you're serious about this hobby. Right now I'm on a pretty tight budget and the Fuji seemed to have all the features I'm looking for. But like you said , David, will it perform as well as advertised? Will it be good to shoot landscapes with since that is my primary interest? One of my goals in getting a new camera is to improve resolution quality. But I am not familiar with all the technology that comes with the dSLRs. I have no experience obviously with shutter speed, aperture and so on. So would the Fuji be better to learn with than the d3100?cAnd will it be good to use for the next several years? When I make this purchase I don't plan on purchasing another camera any time soon. I could however save for more lenses.

[shooters_desire]

well actually it does have the reviews but only a step under which would be the HS10exr. So see sheryl what updates they did to this camera compared to the older models. You may consider calling fuji customer support and asking them. Try to stick to the EXR version like we discussed. Rock is right that you won't have that wide angle so you may want to look more into the P7000 or the Canon G12. TheEXR Is pretty much the same as a dslr accept it has a built on lens. Your Quest would be finding one that has a wide angle like 12 through 18 to start off with. I'm not sure panasonic makes a EXR camera. If they so i would explore that aavenue because they use leica lenses on there cameras

[Sheryl]

Okay, I'm getting confused about the lenses. What is the optimum lens for taking landscapes and do any of these cameras we've been discussing come with one? Or which one would be the best for shooting landscapes? Remember I also want to eventually be able to shoot wildlife as well as smaller things such as flowers, insects.... That's why the Fuji sounded so appealing because it offered all in one. But would I be getting less as far as image quality? Which of these 3 would best suit my needs for now and the next several years? Plus the fact I don't know about shutter speed, aperture, exposure..... What one would be simplist to learn with plus give me quality images?

[RockArea]

Sheryl, your present camera has a zoom lens which goes from 36 - 108 mm, that's 36mm at the wide angle end and 108mm at the telephoto. For landscapes people tend to like a wide angle of 18mm or less so the Nikon D3100 standard lens (18-55VR) would fulfil that criteria. For closeups it wouldn't get as near as your present camera.

The P7000 wide angle is 28mm wider than your present camera but not as wide as the standard Nikon lens. On telephoto it goes to 200mm which is a fair range (nearly twice as long as your present camera) but not long enough for most wildlife.

The Fuji wide angle is 24mm, wider than your present camera but not as wide as the Nikon standard lens on the D3100. The telephoto is massive at 720mm which in theory should pull in eagles on mountain tops. Most wildlife shooters are pleased to have a 500mm lens which needs a very large slab of glass at the front end in order to get sufficient light. In reality I don't know, but I doubt conditions would ever be good enough to get you a good shot at that distance (or even half of it).

David

[Sheryl]

Like Harry commented I would also like to be able to handle these cameras and get a good look at them besides just viewing them on the internet. The Fuji, however has not been released yet. What is a good censor size? David mentioned that the Fuji has a small censor size. What does the censor affect?

[Sheryl]

So , David,  in other words none of these cameras would be good for both landscapes and wildlife? Except with the d3100 I can always add more lenses for wildlife and macro eventually. But the lens it comes with would only be good for landscapes. Is that correct?

[BigAl]

There is no such thing as a 'landscape lens' - i.e. one specifically built for taking landscape scenes. No, instead there are lenses that are more suited to landscape photography and that give you more opportunity for good landscape compositions.

In simple terms, the lower the focal length value, the wider the view captured. So, as David wrote, an 18mm lens will take in a much wider scene than your current 36mm one does. It means that you can get the whole view without having to decide whether or not to leave something out on the left or right (or above and below.) So, if you want flexability, you should be looking at a wide-angle zoom - one that goes from (around) 18mm to about 50mm.

[RockArea]

Perhaps I misled you there, the sensor is the digital equivalent of the film in a film camera, Sheryl. In the Fuji and the Nikon D3100 they are the same size but Fuji have put 16 megapixels in their sensor compared to 14.2 megapixels in the Nikon. More pixels in theory give you high quality images but in practice more pixels can also increase noise (that's the unpleasant graininess you can sometimes get). The sensor is one of the things that is new in the new version of the Fuji so it's hard to know how good it is. Fuji says it's very good but I'd like to see a comprehensive review by someone like dpreview. At present Dpreview is only quoting Fujis press release, they haven't tested it them selves.

BigAl's quite right in what he says about there being no such thing as a landscape lens. Many landscape photographers, me included, like to have a specialist ultrawide angle lens, but generally when we're out with our camera we like to take a variety of things. As well as landscapes we might want to take things like the catkins on a tree in spring so a 'walkaround' lens is a very useful thing. If I could only have one lens I'd go for an 18-200 VR (that's the vibration reduction, some manufacturers call it OS optical stabilisation).

[Sheryl]

Thanks guys for clearing that up. The standard lens that comes with the d3100 is 18-55. So I will have the ability to shoot landscapes and other images I just won't have the ability to shoot wildlife ,correct? I don't want to have to worry about noise. That's one of many reasons I'm wanting to upgrade is to decrease the amount of noise in my photos. I'm still confused as to what would be the ideal camera to purchase. I think I need one of you to go shopping with me. lol  I'm now leary of the Fuji even though it sounds ideal. And if the p7000 is similar to the d3100 I may as well just go with the dSLR so I won't be needing to upgrade my camera again any time soon. So now its back to the Fuji or the D3100, I think. Its such a difficult decison when I know so little about cameras. I've done some research and thought I knew some of the features I wanted in a camera. But now I'm wondering if the features are as important as the camera itself and the lens. Maybe I should focus my search there instead. ?

[Seven_Wishes]

You may find this useful with regards the Fuji ( http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Fujifilm-FinePix-HS10-Digital-Camera-Review-21833.htm  ), while not the model that has been mentioned here, it is its direct predecessor and will give you an insight in to its capabilities with regards noise, colour, resolution, design and handling and how it compares to its nearest rivals.
With all bridge cameras there is going to be a trade off in performance and this is without doubt always going to be in the lens department .... But and some may disagree with this the trade off is minimal in all other areas when comparing with budget or entry level DSLR cameras.

The kit lens with all entry level DSLRs is not going to be the best piece of glass in the world ... The Nikon VR 18-55 while being a stabilised lens has drawbacks, the image quality is not as good as its predecessor the non VR version, the front end of the barrel rotates when focusing, not great for use with filters (polarising), as with all kit lenses of this quality it is slow f3.5-5.6 ...
The biggest issue ... Will your budget stretch to a higher quality lens other than the standard kit lens and the level of frustration that you may encounter until the purchase of your next lens.

Regardless of the lens and the acquisition of more further down the line, without doubt you are going to find not a day goes by when a wider or longer lens would have been better.

Draw up a check list of what you want from a camera now ... not in the future and compare each model against that check list ... It’s all very well in saying that if you go down the DLSR route that the lenses will fit and work on your next camera body, this is not always the case if you jump from crop frame sensor to full frame and then in some cases with third party lens manufacturers these have been known not to work at all or not in the same way on newer models.

[RockArea]

I think it's a bit unfair to say that this is a 'slow' lens, David, it's a standard lens of the type that 90% of people use day to day and while a bit plasticky compared to more expensive kit it is good quality and for landscape work it's fine.  I didn't realise the barrel rotated but that's not a problem with circular filters even polarisers.  Kit lenses are never top grade but it's not a bad starting point.

Nikon lenses of this type have an internal motor and so will fit all other DX cameras unless you want to go full frame. Going full frame is always a big commitment anyway and not the route most of us will take.

You're absolutely right about always wanting another lens though, no matter how many you have

David

[Sheryl]

I'm already frustrated with the camera I have now. I don''t want to purchase a new one just to be frustrated once again. I'm almost certain I cannot afford a second lens at this time. I'm going to have to make do with the kit lens for now, but I was hoping that even with the kit lens my photos would be of a better quality than they are now. Will they? I have a short list of features I thought I wanted or needed in a camera,but now I'm beginning to doubt my choices because its clear to me I'm just not that familiar with all the technicalities involved. I thought the fuji had what I was looking for, but David has said that it probably wouldn't be good for landscape photos  which is my main focus. So then I thought the d3100 was the way to go except now Seven_Wishes says that I might not be satisfied with the kit lens. The decision seems to be getting harder, not easier. I'm just afraid of making the wrong choice and then having buyer's remorse. This is a lot of money for me to spend and I want to make the right choice. Is the Fuji all its cracked up to be and/or will I be satisfied with the kit lens with the Nikon?

[Sheryl]

Thanks Seven_Wishes for the link. It was very informative. I was not impressed with the camera's  capabilites. The photos were not crisp and clear like I would expect them to be. I want better photos than what I'm producing now. Unless they've made vast improvements to that camera I'm not sure I'd still be interested in it. What are your thoughts?

[Seven_Wishes]

Hi Sheryl
These are all points of view ... and as you have said very confusing ... all they have seemed to have done is muddied the waters and made your decision making even harder.

The 18-55VR kit lens while not being my choice to go for would make a more than adequate lens for landscape photography, 18mm even taking the crop factor in to account will be wide enough for most scenarios and when it isn't well that is something that not just you but all of us as photographers have to learn to live with. The drawbacks and limitations were mentioned only as something to take in to consideration and to give more of a balance view between that of the Nikon and bridge camera when making your decision and not meant in implying that the lens was rubbish.

The suggestion of the bridge camera ... while you get more bang for your buck with the initial outlay and it being as close to a DLSR without actually buying one has one major disadvantage ... the lens ... at wide angle you will more than likely notice chromatic aberration and barrel distortion (more than on the standard Nikon kit lens) ... zoomed in you will probably be able to notice definition of detail and sharpness fall of towards the edges ... but this is the very nature of ultra zooms in packing so much in.

If the frustration and limitations of only having one lens with such a short focal length can be over come go for the DSLR, it will make an equally as good a learning tool as the bridge camera ... maybe more so because you will have to think more about composition and how you capture the image.

Ed
   

[Sheryl]

Thanks Ed. I'm curious as to what you would go for if you were me? Only your opinion, but it would be helpful to me.I won't run out and make my decision based on your opinion. Don't worry. I just value the opinions of the photographers in the gallery because you all have more experience and more knowledge than me. Your opinions give me a more realistic view of how to consider different cameras. Things I haven't thought about or didn't know about. If you're not comfortable in giving me your opinion , that's fine too.
It may not seem like it , but you are helping me see things more clearly. And yes the decision has become harder just because of my lack of knowledge. That's why I posed my question in here. To get knowledgable advise.

                     Sheryl

[shooters_desire]

ok Sheryl we may have some new works in the fire. I need to check with bengi to see if he will do this deal for you for 600.00.
Here it is: a nikon d40X + 18-270vc tamron.  The d40x is used but carries a 9+ rating which is very good

[scoundrel1728]

Thanks guys for clearing that up. The standard lens that comes with the d3100 is 18-55. So I will have the ability to shoot landscapes and other images I just won't have the ability to shoot wildlife ,correct?

It won't be impossible to shoot wildlife with such a lens; but if your subject happens to be a grizzly bear, most likely you are way too close.

I don't want to have to worry about noise. That's one of many reasons I'm wanting to upgrade is to decrease the amount of noise in my photos.

A dSLR won't necessarily remove your worries about noise; it depends on how big and for what purpose the images are to be reproduced.  The more you blow your images up, the more likely that noise will become a problem.  Noise is also likely to be more of a problem in an image with large areas of nearly featureless tones, e.g., sky or heavily blurred background, and in areas where the darker parts of the image are important.  As a rough gauge, a compact digital or bridge camera at ISO 200 has roughly the same amount of noise as your typical dSLR at ISO 800 to 1600.

I'm still confused as to what would be the ideal camera to purchase.

There is no such thing as an ideal camera; they all have their limitations.  The best you can reasonably expect to do is to get something that does most of what you want to do most of the time.  dSLR cameras, for example, are potentially capable of better image quality, but you must also contend with dragging a bigger, heavier, more complicated, and more expensive camera around with you.  The dSLR also saddles you with a shallower depth of field when taking extreme closeups.  I don't know what the prices of lenses run in your part of the world, but you can expect a decent lens in the 400mm (35mm equivalent) range for basic wildlife photography to run somewhere about USD900, for which you can buy 2-3 compact or bridge cameras with a superlong zoom and image stabilization (vibration reduction in Nikon speak).  In my opinion, a well-selected bridge camera makes a generally better learning tool than a dSLR for a beginning photographer to learn the basic artistic and technical aspects of photography.  Then, once you do decide to get a dSLR, you will have a better idea what kinds of images you take, what kinds of lenses and other accessories you are most likely to need with it, and generally the tradeoffs involved in getting one kind of equipment over another.  You will also still be able to use your compact or bridge camera for those occasions when you want a camera but can't or don't want to bother with your full dSLR kit.

And if the p7000 is similar to the d3100 I may as well just go with the dSLR so I won't be needing to upgrade my camera again any time soon. So now its back to the Fuji or the D3100, I think. Its such a difficult decison when I know so little about cameras. I've done some research and thought I knew some of the features I wanted in a camera. But now I'm wondering if the features are as important as the camera itself and the lens. Maybe I should focus my search there instead. ?

If you are this confused, the safest choice financially is the Fuji.  With a bridge or compact digital, you might be getting another camera in a couple of years, or maybe not.  Meanwhile, you will be getting generally more photographic capability for your money and will also buy time to make a more informed choice when (and if) you finally do go with the dSLR.

On the other hand, if you have already made your list as Seven_Wishes has suggested, then perhaps you are ready for the dSLR for your landscapes.  He may also be right about your perpetually wanting a wider or longer lens, but it may take a while to save up enough to scratch that itch.  Then another itch develops, and then another...  Don't think that a dSLR will save you money over a bridge camera.  I have most of my major needs taken care of with my own kit, but am thinking of getting a 50mm f/1.4 and an 85mm f/1.8 and a longer macro lens and something longer than 200mm, plus getting another flash unit and a triggering system, plus light modifiers, plus... well, you get the idea.  The difficult part is to have the discipline to set priorities and to separate your wants from your actual needs.

One alternative is to get a secondhand dSLR kit or lenses.  You take some risk this way, but I've had good luck so far with this approach.

[RockArea]

Sheryl, you must be suffering from 'Helmet Fire' right now. That's what the fighter pilots call it when they're getting so much information that the smoke comes out of their ears! You're on a tremendous learning curve and I'm sure that the information you're getting will be useful when you can process it all.

Don't rush into this, take a break and let it settle down in your mind. If you can get to see some cameras, feel them in your hands that would be good but remember each salesman will be likely to be putting his own slant on things too but don't be persuaded to part with your cash then and there because it's an 'unrepeatable one day only bargain'. Don't rush in because you want the new toy, only buy when you feel you've done all the research you can and you're ready to make the decision.

David

[Sheryl]

David, shooters_desire, is the d40 an entry level dSLR camera? And is the Fuji a bridge camera or a digital with a bigger lens?  David, Rockarea, wow! My head is spinning! That's a lot of great advise and information. You're right about the "Helmet Fire"! It seems like the more info I get , the more confused I get. Or at least the decision becomes harder to make because there is so much to consider when purchasing a new and improved camera. I'm glad to get the information, don't get me wrong. Its just hard to process it all. Noise is something I struggle with my digital and also being able to shoot at a distance and not have a blurriness to the image. Its so frustrating. With landscapes sometimes they are farther away than my digital can handle. That's another reason I want a better camera. You mentioned before that the Fuji might not be good for shooting landscapes because its lens starts at 24mm instead of the preferred 18. And since landscapes is my main area of photography I worry if it would be the best choice. ON the other hand it sounds like a fairly simple camera to operate.And since I'lm new at all this and am lacking in knowledge maybe it would be the better camera for me. I had originally thought that when I made the jump to a new camera it would be to an entry level dSLR. Now I'm not so sure. I need some time to think about all the info I've gotten so far and see if I can settle the battle that's waging in my head! lol

[shooters_desire]

Sheryl i have very very good news this morning.. I spoke with Jack's camera and i got him to go down on the price some. The D40X is an upgrade from the d40 10mp pixels not 6. Also they have a 18-270 vc lens to put on it. This is a very sweet deal. The camera is a 9+ rating like new.
 GO FOR IT... You need to call them speak with Bengi 765-281-2786 Your total price is 600.00 you may want to ask him if he will take your camera on a trade and ask him how much it would be...

[Sheryl]

Thanks David, I can call, but I don't have the cash just yet. Will they hold something like that for me, I wonder? Someone else sent me this link to view another camera. the link is http://www.digitaltrends.com/digital-camera-reviews/sony-cyber-shot-dsc-hxl-review/  If anyone is interested in checking this one out for me and giving me their opinion. Thanks.

[shooters_desire]

sheryl that link you sent is broken up. Page not found. That camera deal i was able to get them to come down over 100.00. I deal with these guys all the time
I believe your getting a very sweet deal. Be honest with you.. That camera body is very nice and the Tamron 18-270 will give you the range you need to keep you shooting for some time to come ( but better glass is always a high priority just takes lots of maoney to get them). Yes ask benji to put it on hold for you..

[Pipeman]

Sheryl - your comments suggest that you WANT a DSLR.

Go for it - the technical issues will soon unfold provided that you read and read the instruction manual, and practice and practice (which is always fun!). They are not quite as complicated as some would lead us to believe.

Although I'm not a Nikon user, kit lenses are much better than many people give credit for - Canons have a similar 18-55 kit lens which I find of good quality and which I have taken many close up shots with. Normal landscapes are not a problem and I have used it on many holidays.
They need to be of decent quality as they are the first lens that most people buy, and Nikon, Canon, want photographers to stick with them. It is only when you have been using them for ages and you begin to get a bit more advanced and picky, that you begin to think you need something "better".

If you do go down this route and eventually decide that you want additional lenses - which you will -  either longer ones for wildlife or macro lenses, or wider lenses, the best advice I can offer is to not be tempted to buy cheap. You will be disappointed.

Best wishes whichever way you go - I hope that I have not added further confusion and look forward to hearing your decision.

[BigAl]

I reckon that you'd be well positioned for now and a long while into the future with that D40X offer.

I'd get it put on hold for myself if I didn't have the D700.

[Sheryl]

Here's that link again, I got it off by one number:   http:/www.digitaltrends.com/digital-camera-reviews/sony-cyber-shot-dsc-hx1-review/  Sorry.   Thanks Ron for your input and your support. I really appreciate it. David, I'm going to call Benji to find out more info on the D40X before I just jump in. Hopefully it will be what I'm looking for. The lens sounds very nice and I think your're right about it satisfying me for quite some time.

                  Thanks to you both,
                  Sheryl

[Neou]

And mainly don,t forget ........It's not the size of the boat or the motion of the ocean. It's how the captain navigates!

[Sheryl]

Neou, lol   So true.

 Big Al, thanks for your input. You've helped me more than you'll know. 

[BigAl]

Big Al, thanks for your input. You've helped me more than you'll know. 

All I've done is pass on the knowledge that the others on this site have given me. You've just been helped by the combined minds of the Cafe members.

This is what this site is all about.

[Sheryl]

Thanks to everyone who commented, advised, supported, and instructed me in my endeavor to find the right upgraded camera for me. You were all very helpful and knowledgable and I couldn't have made a decision without your imput. I've decided after much consideration to go for the Nikon D40X with a Tameron 18-270 vc lens. I'm getting a very good deal on it thanks to David, shooters-desire. So a special thanks goes out to him. You are all terrific and when I get the new camera which should be in the next two weeks, I may be back with more questions for you all. You've been a great help.

                    Thanks so much,
                      Sheryl

[RockArea]

If you can spare a few dollars more the Magic Lantern Guide is an excellent resource. Much more helpful than the manual.

http://www.amazon.com/Magic-Lantern-Guides-Nikon-D40x/dp/1600592589

[Pipeman]

Great news Sheryl - have fun!

[Sheryl]

Thanks Pipeman! I can't wait to get started!

[Seven_Wishes]

Nice one Sheryl, I hope you have many hours/days/months and years of shooting with your new best friend.

[shooters_desire]

sheryl here's a site that has blue crane videos. I'm not sure but they could be free . Nows the time to learn your camera inside and out. Then when you get it your ready for  action..http://gigabitdownload.com/search/Blue+Crane+Nikon+Introduction+D40+D40x+Training
In reality your paying more for the glass then you are for the camera like twice as much. I read up on this camera and sunday we had a meetup to go over camera settings and adjustments to indoor and outdoor lighting and one of the people had a d40. I was impressed with the camera

[Sheryl]

Thanks Ed for all your input.
 
Thanks David once again. You're the information highway. I will definitely be checking out the link. And its good to hear that you were impressed with the camera. I am breathing a sigh of relief now that the decision has been made. I can't wait to learn how to use the new camera! If anyone wants to donate to my gas fund for my car so I can go out and shoot lots of pictures with the new camera , I'll be glad to give you my address! lol

[scoundrel1728]

Nows the time to learn your camera inside and out. Then when you get it your ready for  action..http://gigabitdownload.com/search/Blue+Crane+Nikon+Introduction+D40+D40x+Training

I don't advise this approach; you can void the warranty if you take your camera apart.

[Harry7mc]

HI,D40x, You will enjoy learning to use this very capable camera / lens combination.
My soninlaw used mine staring from scratch & produced excellent results.
I myself had this as a backup to my D70 kit originally but I used it more eventullay.
Enjoy & many years of good shooting.

[Sheryl]

Thanks Harry for that boost to my confidence and the validation of the camera I chose. I'll need all the confidence I can get, there's so much to learn. I'm looking forward to it! 

[Sheryl]

Good one Scoundrel!!

[Harry7mc]

Sheryl, there is an  Auto setting on the D40X & when you go out for the first time try it!
 you may just be surprised.
I do this with my camera & give it to my 7&4 yr old grandsons They love taking photos & get some interseting results.
Another setting is "P", set this & go out & try adjusting shutterspeeds/ f stops. In "P" the camera is ajustable by you unlikr 'Auto'
\\\\\good luck

[Sheryl]

Thanks Harry, great tips! I'll take all I can get. The more I know before I get the camera , the more confident I'll feel trying it out for the first time.

[busybee]

Sorry I missed this whirlwind of decision making Sheryl - I'm SO excited for you!!!!!

[Sheryl]

Thanks Busybee! I'm excited too! Can't wait to get the new camera and start playing!

[x372sailor]

A friend has recently bought a Sony A55. This is a very interesting camera with some great features at a reasonable price point. You get 16 megapixels, panorama shooting, fast frames per second (10, I believe). No movable mirror. This is worth looking into, unless you see yourself regularly adding components and wanting to build a system of quality components. Personally, I started with a D70s Nikon and built up a collection of lenses and worked through ever more expensive bodies until getting to the full frame body (D700). If you don't see yourself working with an array of lenses and ever-increasing expectations of top quality equipment, you don't necessarily need to settle upon a system (i.e. Canon vs Fujifilm vs Nikon, etc) and simply look for a full featured camera that lets you explore your creative side for now and the next few years. The Sony packs a lot of features into a very reasonable price point.

http://www.popphoto.com/2010/12/camera-year-sony-a55

[Sheryl]

x372sailor, Thanks for your imput. I think I would really like the panorama shooting. It would be great for landscapes. Thanks for the link as well. I guess I'm not sure what you mean by a full frame body as compared to the D40x I'm considering. ?

[Hatter]

I guess I'm not sure what you mean by a full frame body as compared to the D40x I'm considering. ?

The sensor on most DSLRs is smaller than a frame of 35mm film, Sheryl.  This means that your photo is only the middle 2/3rds of what it would have been if you'd taken the photo on a 35mm film SLR.  This has the effect of making lenses behave as if they're a longer focal length than they would be on a film camera.  As an indication, the  standard 18-55mm kit lens gives around the same field of view as a 28-90mm lens on a film camera.  This isn't a problem - it's just something you need to be aware of when choosing lenses.  (For Nikon, the effective focal length is 1.5x the actual focal length.  For Canon DSLRs it's 1.6x.)
The "full frame" DSLRs have sensors that are the same size as a 35mm film so a lens will give the same field of view as it would on a film SLR.  Full frame bodies cost more, obviously - I don't think it's something you need to worry about at this time.

 

[Sheryl]

Thanks Gareth for clearing that up somewhat. Its all so new to me. I'm embarrassed to know so little. But I'm determined to learn which may involve asking a lot more questions. I was wondering about a couple of things. One, does everyone who has a dSLR use a tripod all the time? And two, do most photographers use a uv filter to protect their lens? I was informed that it was a good idea to do. If anyone can answer those questions for now, I'd appreciate it. Thanks.

[Hatter]

I was wondering about a couple of things. One, does everyone who has a dSLR use a tripod all the time? And two, do most photographers use a uv filter to protect their lens?

Just answering for myself, obviously:
One - no.  I should probably use one more than I do, but most of the time I find it's not convenient.  I guess it depends on the type of photography you do.
Two - yes.  I have a UV filter on all my lenses - purely for protection against knocks etc.

  

[x372sailor]

Just lost my lengthy write-up so this is a summary of what I was writing when it disappeared.

Sony also has a Sony A33 camera - similar to A55 but less features but about $200 cheaper.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/AA33/AA33A.HTM

Sony bodies have built-in image stabilization (google it if you need to).

Nikon low end bodies don't have autofocus motors so you need AF-S lenses (with built-in motors) for auto focussing. This limits you to availability of lens choices.

Most of the consumer DSLRs are 1.5x to 1.6x crop factor bodies. It means the sensor that captures the image is smaller by a factor when compared to 35mm film (36mm x 24mm).

Nikon cameras are about 24mm wide so the crop factor is 36/24 = 1.5x.  Canon bodies are 1.6x crop factor so their sensors are that much smaller than 24mm.

Non-DSLRs are usually that much smaller again. Sorry, but I don't know those relative sizes.

[Seven_Wishes]

Always with UV on the front of the lens ... Much cheaper to replace that should it get scratched or cracked than the repair bill or replacement for a new lens.

Tripods, as a rule of thumb, your shutter speed should equate (or be higher than) to the focal length of the lens. For instance if you have a 300mm lens you should aim for a shutter speed of 1/300 of a second. Obviously with image stabilization you can get a way with less, but this is down to trial and error and other variables ... The slower the shutter speed the more likelihood of an out of focus image. For general everyday shooting a mono pod is just as good as a tripod ... Night time shots, macro, HDR (where bracketing exposures), and daylight long exposures a tripod, you don’t need to spend a fortune on a tripod, just one that is sturdy enough to support your camera and heaviest lens combination.

[scoundrel1728]

I was wondering about a couple of things. One, does everyone who has a dSLR use a tripod all the time? And two, do most photographers use a uv filter to protect their lens? I was informed that it was a good idea to do. If anyone can answer those questions for now, I'd appreciate it. Thanks.

No, I don't usually put my dSLR on a tripod.  However, I am often sitting down when shooting, which means that I can hold the camera steadier than I otherwise could when standing up without support.  A tripod is usually too immobile when shooting events anyway.  When I am out shooting landscapes, I usually bring a tripod with me, though I don't always use it then either.  This hurts my keeper rate because I sometimes - more often than I like, actually - spoil a shot with camera movement.

There are two schools on protective filters.  In favor of protective filters is that it protects the front element of the lens from dust, mud, salt spray, and other airborne contaminants.  When shooting children and pets, a protective filter can also protect the lens against fingerprints and noseprints from overly curious subjects.  This helps preserves the lens from frequent cleanings; the replaceable filter takes the wear instead of the delicate lens coating.  The filter also protects against scratches from windborne sand, grit. gravel, and small pebbles that may scratch and chip the lens.  Whether the filter protects against shocks great enough to shatter the front element is controversial.  Some say it does; some say the shards from the broken filter do at least as much damage to the lens as the original projectile would have.  People who are fully invested in this argument usually have a filter for every lens they own and routinely leave them on the lens, taking them off only to mount some other filter or lens accessory.

The argument against filters is that the filter offers two more reflective surfaces in the light path to get dirty and increase the likelihood and severity of flare and ghosting.  The glass itself degrades the image, especially cheap filters whose surfaces aren't quite flat and parallel.

I own such a filter but use it only when such a hazard to the front element is expected, which is pretty seldom.  I have also chosen the brand and model of the filter carefully so as to have something that is fairly easy to clean and is not likely to contribute much in the way of reflections or flare.

[Sheryl]

Thank you so much for responding to my questions. I take mostly landscapes, but not always so I'm thinking a tripod might be a good investment for when I'm shooting from the road. If I were to go hiking to get my pictures I think I'd just probably take my chances and hope I have a steady hand. In most cases I could use the tripod because of where I shoot most of my pictures. The filter , on the other hand, sounds like it has its advantages as well as its disadvantages depending on what type of lens I were to purchase. I guess that would be an area I couldn't go cheap. I don't think I'd have much use for the filter after reading the scenarios that you've presented. I was just worried about getting scratches on the lens by accident because I have to admit I'm a little clumsy. You have been very helpful.

              Thanks scroundrel1728,
                Sheryl

[RockArea]

... One, does everyone who has a dSLR use a tripod all the time? And two, do most photographers use a uv filter to protect their lens? I was informed that it was a good idea to do. If anyone can answer those questions for now, I'd appreciate it. Thanks.

If you're out and about photographing in the middle of the day, a tripod can be inconvenient and is probably not needed, however if you're out in low light conditions, say at dawn or dusk, the period which is known as the 'golden hour' because the light is often best at that time, then a tripod is indispensible as you'll often find that, even with a VR lens, the exposure will be longer than you can easily hold steady. When photographing waterfalls or other running water a long exposure of 1/3 to 1 second can be very effective. I'd say that a tripod is a good thing to have when you can afford one for the times that you do need it. It gives you a bigger range of opportunities. Mine is always in the back of the car and frequently accomanies me even if it doesn't always get used.

I used to keep a filter on the lens all the time but I no longer do that. With the camera you're used to the lens is probably covered automatically when you're not using it. DSLRs don't do that so it's a good idea to remember to pop the lens cap on as soon as you've taken your shots and started walking. That lens cap will probably provide better protection than a glass filter. If you do buy a filter, you may find that a circular polariser is a useful one for landscape photography. It enhances blue skies under certain conditions and can often make water shots look good by reducing the reflections.

David

[Sheryl]

Thanks David for your added imput. I heard that polarizing filters are good for making skies bluer in landscapes. Is this true? I think a tripod might be a good investment. I'd love to be able to find a good used one as I'm on a tight budget. Right now I'm just looking to get the bare necessities since I'm just starting off.

[RockArea]

Thanks David for your added imput. I heard that polarizing filters are good for making skies bluer in landscapes. Is this true?

Yes it is true, Sheryl, but it's alo something you have to be careful with. When there's a lot of clear blue sky in your shot a polariser will make the area at 90 degrees to the sun much darker than other parts of the sky so it can make the sky look uneven. This tends to be worse with very wide angle lenses and I don't use a polariser on my very wide (10-20) lens for this reason. It's not usually a problem on my 18-200.

David

[Sheryl]

I'm starting off with an 18-270 lens. Its just so many of my barn photos have a plain sky and I thought maybe the polarizing filter would help give the sky some life. I don't know how to do a sky in an editing program so I was hoping the filter could help. Or I'll just have to wait for days where the sky has some clouds .... I can't always pick when I can go out shooting. I go when I can. So I go no matter what the sky looks like.

 Thanks David

[Pipeman]

. With the camera you're used to the lens is probably covered automatically when you're not using it. DSLRs don't do that so it's a good idea to remember to pop the lens cap on as soon as you've taken your shots and started walking. That lens cap will probably provide better protection than a glass filter.David

I agree - but through habit I've always bought an AV with every lens - I dropped my camera a couple of years ago and the filter was damaged but the lens intact. Problem was that I couldn't get the damaged filter off!

Although I have one, I dislike tripods - cumbersome and can take the spontaniety out of photography. Mind, as I shoot lots of sport it's not practical or necessary except for cricket when I use one to support the camera and lens in between the action.

Unless you are seeking long exposures then it's easier to learn how to handle your camera at lower speeds - you will find that 1/20th and even 1/10th are achievable with wide-ish lenses.

[RockArea]

I'm starting off with an 18-270 lens. Its just so many of my barn photos have a plain sky and I thought maybe the polarizing filter would help give the sky some life. I don't know how to do a sky in an editing program so I was hoping the filter could help. Or I'll just have to wait for days where the sky has some clouds .... I can't always pick when I can go out shooting. I go when I can. So I go no matter what the sky looks like.

 Thanks David

A polariser may help with this a little but as you get more skilled with your camera you will learn how to underexpose your shot in order to get more detail in the sky. A little selective lightening of the barn will then be possible as you learn more about editing.
 
It's a learning curve but it's very rewarding and great fun!

[Sheryl]

Can't wait to start learning even though I feel a little intimidated by all there is to learn. I'm ready to get started! I really need a teacher to guide me through it. I'm afraid the owner's manual won't be beginner friendly.

[RockArea]

Well, it's lucky that you found the right place. 

[Sheryl]

I love the Photography Cafe! I've learned so much here already and I learn new things everyday. I especially appreciate those who take the time to make a comment good or bad on my photos. Its so helpful. It lets me know what I've done right and wrong. How else will I improve? So keep the comments and suggestions coming!

[Zoot]

You could try your local Freecycle for a tripod, or get one cheaply on E-Bay!

[Sheryl]

What is Freecycle? Never heard of it. I could check E-Bay.

[Sheryl]

I just read a review by a professional photographer about what he would say is the best 2 cameras to buy. One was the Nikon D7000(pricey) and the other was the Nikon D3100 with the kit lens. He says the kit lens is all you'd ever need. I was told by someone that the kit lens wouldn't work well for landscapes. Now I'm wondering if I'm making the right choice between the new D3100 with kit lens and the used D40X with the 18-270 lens. Any opinions out there before I spend my $?

              Confused,
             Sheryl

[shooters_desire]

Humbug your really investing in a lens moreso then the camera. BUT with that said the d40x will work awesome for you. Whoever gave that review is promoting that camera for that specific website or online stores... If you had 1000.00 then i would say get thew d3100 with the 17-270 lens but you don't so the d40x will be plenty for you to handle sheryl until you get some more green to invest in a better camera.. STAY FOCUSED LOL

[jart]

You can weigh up the Pros and Cons and we all will have a different opinion , but when you narrow it down to just a hand full its a personal chose ..  the D40x is a good camera .. the kit lens is a kit lens .. all lens's have there limits and as most things in life , nothing is perfict

Unlike a PS  you are buying in to a family   

john

[shooters_desire]

I have made the mistake of over pursuing a project to Sheryl. 2nd guessing my decisions as well. All along its waiting right there for me hand in foot. Yes the D3100 is a good camera but like i mentioned before with the funds you stated above the D40x is a lot of camera and the Lens where in this case is twice the cost of the camera. Your getting a Banquet dinner cost for Mcdonalds instead. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity package that was 765.00 your getting for a special 600.00. Don't pass it up. Lenses are very expensive and hard to come by at a good price as well. If anything you may want to contact them to reassure them your getting the set. Your Friend David

[Sheryl]

Thanks guys. I'm feeling a little better now that I've heard from some of you. I just read that and immediately started second guessing my decision. Its just because I don't know that much about cameras to begin with and this is my first "big" investment and I want to choose correctly. You've helped  to calm my nerves. Thanks so much. I think I can breath again. lol  Now if I can just convince my husband I'm making the right decision. lol

[jane_t]

As "shooters_desire" says,  the lenses are the most important part going forward.  I have Canon kit and will probably buy a replacement for my 30D at some point,  but as I won't be going to a full frame camera all my lenses will come with me.  (I'll generously give my 30D to my OH as my old 300D, which he uses, is getting a bit cranky).  So I would go with a d40x and the better lens every time (as lenses last much longer than bodies, especially when talking Digital).

[Sheryl]

Thanks Jane for your words of support. I needed to hear that. I thought I was making the right decision, but I just got distracted by that professional for a bit.

          Sheryl

[Sheryl]

Can someone please explain the differences and uses of these two lens: 18-55 and 55-200? What are they best used for? Thanks.

[Zoot]

What is Freecycle? Never heard of it. I could check E-Bay.

Freecycle is a site on which you give away unwanted items which still have some use in them - most areas have a local site.  You can also post "Wanted" items.

[Sheryl]

Thanks Zoot.

[shooters_desire]

Sheryl; the 17-270 Tamron vc lens is very good quality glass compared to the lenses on the D3100. The d3100 doesn't take the photo shot. the lens does. Its like this. Try to Read this thread closing your eyes. You can't because without your eyes your body can't see the thread. Good glass is very important to photography. the Fstop on the 18-55 is to big. Not only that you can forget about night shots unless you crank up your ISO which can diminish the quality of your photo. I'm going to step out of subject now. Pray about it and for 1 day don't even think about the cameras. then see what happens. Once you turn it over To God let it Go. Then when you get the money you will know what to do.

[BigAl]

Can someone please explain the differences and uses of these two lens: 18-55 and 55-200? What are they best used for? Thanks.

The lower the number, the wider the view taken. So the 18-55 lens would take wide views to mid-range whilst the 55-200 would take mid-range to very narrow views.

Now, you may be thinking that you want to have a wider view every time so that you can get everything in the picture. But what if you wanted to photograph a bird in a tree? Even at 55mm setting, the bird is still going to be a small part of the picture. But the 200mm zoom would allow you to get the bird to fill more of the frame as if you were standing a few metres away.

Proper bird photographers will go for an 800mm lens or more. They mount these huge lenses on sturdy tripods. With a 200mm lens you could not compete with the detail they could acheive; but you could crop the results down to get the same image albeit with a slight loss of sharpness in detail.

[busybee]

My husband always says 'a camera is for Christmas, but a lens is for life' - i.e. spend the money on the glass, you'll probably upgrade the body later.

I don't know anything about the specific lens you are looking at, the 18 - 270, but it has a pretty amazing range; IF the quality is good at both ends then it will meet most of your needs.  But I will be surprised if it is good quality at the extremes of the range.

It is always a compromise; one lens trying to cover both wide (18mm) and telephoto (270mm) is never going to be as good as dedicated lenses, or ones with a more restricted range - or it will be incredibly heavy and very expensive because of all the high quality glass and mechanisms required!

To cover that same range I now use a 28-105mm, a 100mm macro, and a 70-300mm, plus I borrow my husband's 17-40mm for a really wide angle. But that's a lot to carry around. The 18-270 will cover nearly the same as those lenses, and will give you really good experience of shooting at those different focal lengths. But don't expect exceptional quality throughout. It just ain't possible with a bargain!  I suggest that you read about both the camera and the lens on www.dpreview.com; they review just about every camera and lens there is and then you can get a good idea of what to expect. Bear in mind that every camera and lens combo is likely to have some disadvantages, but if you know what they are going to be, you can avoid the problems that are most likely to bother you, and at least you won't be disappointed.

Here's the link for the review of that lens
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/tamron_18-270_3p5-6p3_vc_n15/

It's a big investment for you, so be wary of rushing your decision because there is a good deal on the table. It's only a good deal if it's right for you.

[Harry7mc]

I have both of those lenses in my collection & am using the 55/200mm at presnt on an Olympus E-P1 with an adapter for garden bird photography>
 For a Good starting Outfit & not too heavy to carry about The D40X + the 18/55 & 55/200 will do moer than you need that is unless unless you are deeply into Nature Photography . If both lenses are by Nikon the you should be well satisfied
I have a D40 & a D90 thes two lenses are used on either camera at times.
Go for it you wont be disappointed I think>

[Sheryl]

Thanks so much for all your imput. The D3100 would come with the kit lens of 18-55 plus a 55-200 lens. The D40X comes with the 18-270 lens. The D3100 is brand new. The D40X is used. This is my dillema. Do I want 2 lens with a new camera or the one lens with the used camera? I won't be able to upgrade a camera for several years. I would however be able to invest in more lenses later on. All advise is welcome. And the prices are only less than $100 difference. And the deal on the D3100 I would have to do today if I want it. So you can see the problem I'm struggling with.

                    Sheryl

[RockArea]

I have a Tamron 18-270 which I keep on my Nikon D80 and it's a good general purpose lens which will give me the option of wide angle to capture a broad vista and will enable me to get close enough to capture birds on a tower or church steeple so for travelling it's a great lens. It's not as sharp as my Nikon 18-200 VR and tends to take longer for the autofocus to lock on to the subject. At the long end of the lens the largest aperture is f6.3 so you would be likely to need a tripod for any low light shots, but it will do a good job for you.

I took this lens with me on holiday to Madeira last year and this is a shot I took with it http://www.photography-cafe.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=lastup&cat=11552&pos=154 There are some more in my gallery taken on the same holiday so this might give you an idea of what it can do.

The D40x as others have said is a good starter camera and I'm sure will serve you very well, but do bear in mind that it will be six years old and Nikon have made improvements since then which will be incorporated in the D3100.

I'm conscious that nothing I've said above is likely to clarify the situation very much for you, I just hope it adds a little information for you to consider.

David

[Sheryl]

I was told the D40X was 3 yrs old. Now you're saying 6? That gives me pause. Thanks for the added information and the link. I'll be sure to check it out.
         
              Sheryl

[Sheryl]

Looks like the D40X came out in March of 2007. Is that too old?

[shooters_desire]

when i 1st heard about the d40x i wanted to see what it was. Come to find out it was an updated version of the d40. They did makes some key updates to it and no 3 years old is not old. Does it compare to the D3100. Not Quite but your buying a lence not necessarily a great camera. You can always save up 350.00 and trade in your camera later for a d3100 but to get the ball rolling with the funds you have to work with the d40x + the lens will get you started. The D3100 & the D40x are entry level DSLR's. Once you get better at it then will be the time to upgrade to a prosumer camera like the D90 or D7000 but you will need 1200.00 for the D7000.

[Seven_Wishes]

new v second hand (or older model) generally speaking I would go for new over second hand every time unless you are getting a 12 month warranty with the pre-owned.
Can three years in technology be classed as old ... six months is old, I would say three years was almost prehistoric ... this does not make it any worse a camera though. The biggest issue with pre-owned is, you could be buying some one else's problems, you don't know its history or how well the camera has been looked after. A lot has been said about the Tamron ultra zoom, most saying it is a more than adequate lens and being better than the kit lens ... I'm not sure how better is defined... zoom length yes ... quality of image well that is debatable, a choice between the two I'd go with the kit lens, it is a better lens at 18mm.   
For me though I'd go for the D3100 body with a 50mm lens and then save for Nikon 18-200mm F3.5-5.6G IF-ED AF-S VR II DX. One thing to take in to consideration when buying third party lenses, they are not guaranteed to work on future camera bodies and it is quite expensive to have them modified or have the chip replaced.
Given the option I'd buy new over old/pre-owned everytime. But only you can decide what is right for you, weigh everything up that is important in your image taking and go with what best suits it

[Hatter]

Sheryl; the 17-270 Tamron vc lens is very good quality glass compared to the lenses on the D3100. The d3100 doesn't take the photo shot. the lens does. Its like this. Try to Read this thread closing your eyes. You can't because without your eyes your body can't see the thread. Good glass is very important to photography. the Fstop on the 18-55 is to big. Not only that you can forget about night shots unless you crank up your ISO which can diminish the quality of your photo. I'm going to step out of subject now. Pray about it and for 1 day don't even think about the cameras. then see what happens. Once you turn it over To God let it Go. Then when you get the money you will know what to do.

If you're seeking divine inspiration, Zeus might be a better bet on this particular subject - after all, he's from Olympus. 

It's true the lens is important - but with digital, the camera is important too.  With a film camera, all the camera itself did was open the shutter and let the light in.  It was the lens and the film that made the picture. With digital, the sensor also plays a major part and high ISO performance can be a major factor if you're likely to do much low-light photography.   

I can't agree about the 18-55 kit lens not being suitable for night shots - the relatively "slow" maximum aperture just means you need longer exposures.  That's not a problem if you're using a tripod, which I'd regard as an essential for that type of photography anyway.  In fact, I often use F16 for night shots because I want the increased depth of field.



 

[Sheryl]

So what I'm hearing most of you saying is that if I'm going to spend the $ I may as well buy new. I can get the kit lens and the 55-200 lens with the D3100 for just a little more than it would cost me to get the used D40X with the 18-270 lens.And the D3100 has image stabilization built in so I wouldn't necessarily need a tripod .According to one source using a tripod with the D3100 can cause blurring because of the built in stabilization. I really do appreciate all your comments and all the info you have supplied me with to better help me make a decision. Its a tough one for me. If I start with the D3100 I wouldn't need to upgrade at all if I'm not looking to go professional, right? So why start with the D40X and then upgrade to the D3100 as has been suggested to me? Why not just start with the upgraded version of the D40X and go new especially if I'm getting 2 decent lenses?

            Sheryl

[scoundrel1728]

The 18-55mm lens covers a field of view between a mild (but real) wide angle and a long-focus length suitable for portraits when put onto a D40x or D3100.  This lens functions much like the 3:1 lens on many compact digitals, especially those who open up to about 28mm equivalent at the wide angle end as this one does.  In other words, this is your zoom for general-purpose photography.  For this reason, a lens of this focal length range is often included in entry-level photographic starter kits.

Fancier, more expensive starter kits often include a zoom that extends well into the telephoto.  In this particular kit, the telephoto range is done with a second lens, the 55-200mm.  This second lens is a general-purpose telephoto zoom.  The wide end of this particular lens, when put onto a D40x or a D3100, has a field of view more or less equivalent to an 85mm portrait lens on a full-frame digital or a 35mm film camera.  The long end of this lens functions something like the long end of a superzoom to pull in details from a distance.  Intermediate settings are for things like tighter head shots and for shooting architectural details.  As long as the 200mm focal length seems to be, it is still a bit short for general-purpose wildlife photography or shooting at sports events played on a large field such as football (American or European) but you can get close enough, you might still be able to make such a lens work.  (Be careful about stressing the wildlife though.)

Both of these lenses should be considered entry level.  As such, they are both small, light in weight, and inexpensive; but, like any lens, they don't do everything.  Neither is especially good at gathering light, nor does either have Vibration Reduction (VR) which is Nikon-speak for image stabilization.  This is a liimitation especially with the 55-200mm because telephoto lenses also magnify the effects of camera shake along with the image.  You will therefore need some bright light or some support to use this lens, especially at the long (200mm) end.  This means you cannot really expect to shoot handheld at 200mm in any light weaker than outdoors in daylight.  Shooting in open shade or heavy overcast is about the limit without some kind of mechanical support.  Resolution tends to get a bit weak at the long end of inexpensive telephoto zooms; the 55-200mm is no exception to this.

The Tamron 18-270mm VC is an "all-in-one" lens much like a true superzoom, covering fields of view in the focal length range from 27 to 400mm on a full-frame camera.  This lens functionally covers the ranges of both the 18-55mm and the 55-200mm lenses and more and without the necessity of a lens change.  The Vibration Compensation (VC) feature, Tamron-speak for VR or IS, also makes this lens more capable in lower light.  However, at the long end, this lens opens up to only f/6.3 - the smaller the f-number, the brighter the image on the imager - which may cause the autofocus feature to struggle or even to fail to work with this particular combination of lens model, camera model, and zoom setting.  In general, this lens can be expected to perform better overall than the 18-55mm and 55-200mm it would replace.  It should; the Tamron costs noticeably more than both the 18-55 and 55-200 put together.  The Tamron is a comparatively new design so I would not expect it to need rechipping for a while.

[scoundrel1728]

So what I'm hearing most of you saying is that if I'm going to spend the $ I may as well buy new. I can get the kit lens and the 55-200 lens with the D3100 for just a little more than it would cost me to get the used D40X with the 18-270 lens.And the D3100 has image stabilization built in so I wouldn't necessarily need a tripod .According to one source using a tripod with the D3100 can cause blurring because of the built in stabilization.

The in-camera stabilization feature of the D3100 is news to me!  I suspect that it may also be news to Nikon and the current D3100 users as well.  You'd better check that bit of info before relying on it for a buying decision.  I've heard that Canon has put design hooks into its system to allow for body-based stabilization in the future; but as far as I know, all current Canon and Nikon bodies rely on the lens for image stabilization.

I do not necessarily agree with the consensus that a new camera body is necessarily better than a secondhand one.  Although the D70 and D70S models are older even than the D40, the D70 and D70S are not really entry-level models but sell for about the same price as the D40 and are worth considering.  If you are careful to check out the vendor's competence, honesty, and return policy, you can buy an inexpensive but capable camera body with reasonable safety.

[Sheryl]

Thanks Scoundrel for helping me to understand the lenses and their functions better. So what I hear you saying is the Tamron 18-270 is the better lens. And I will check on the image stabilization info I got and you disputed. Which is the better camera in your opinion? Is 3-4 yrs too old for a used camera? I'm not looking to upgrade cameras in the next couple of years. I  want a camera that is going to last awhile. You said the kit lens and even the 55-200 lens woiuld not be adequate for wildlife; would the 18-270 be any better as far as wildlife photos? And you're sure that neither the kit lens nor the 55-200 lens has image stabilization ? That's definitely a downside. So no matter which I choose , I'll still need a tripod?
    Appeciate your imput very much,
        Sheryl

[RockArea]

The deals I've seen comprise of Nikon D3100 Digital SLR 18-55mm VR and 55-200 VR Twin Kit so both lenses are VR (vibration Reduction) lenses. I think this is the Nikon kit and would assume that this is the same worldwide but you'll need to check.

David

[scoundrel1728]

As far as body recommendations, I am a Canon shooter who is planning to keep my 40D (a "prosumer" model) for a while, so I haven't been keeping up with the latest in Nikon bodies.  However, you can get some good deals in some of the camera bodies with designs in the 5-10 year old range and can even get a good secondhand prosumer body for what a new entry level body would cost.  If the D70 or D70S is too old for you, consider looking at models like the D80, D200, or D300 or D300S.  (Actually, I think the D200 is a rough contemporary of the D70 but it is a higher-end camera model.)

If your cup of tea is wildlife photography at the pro level, you are looking at thousands of dollars in lenses.  Some of our more committed people use things like the Sigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3 (non-stabilized, aka the "Bigma") and I have heard some good thing about the Tamron 200-500mm lens, also non-stabilized.  However, these lenses, like other non-stabilized lenses of similar focal length range, pretty much require mechanical support (e.g., a tripod) to be used effectively.  Others whose specialties are more tilted toward wildlife photography may also chime in, but suitable lenses for wildlife start at about 300mm for the imager sizes typical of Nikon entry-level and midrange dSLRs.

[Sheryl]

I will check that David , thanks. I definitely want vibration reduction or image stabilization...

[BigAl]

In theory (from what I know,) if you had image stabilization (IS) in both the camera body and the lens, they would 'fight' each other with blurring as a result. I doubt if Nikon would make a camera body with IS unless it could have pin contacts that would disable the IS in the lens.

You can still use an IS lens on a tripod if it comes with an on/off switch (as my big telephoto lens does.) You just have to remember to switch it off.

A 55-200mm lens is not perfect for wildlife photography but is quite adequate. Using the lens at the 200mm setting will get you a big enough image to allow you to crop the photo without too much loss of detail. In fact, a cropped 200mm shot could well be clearer than one from a 500mm lens because you would not be able to afford a telephoto to the required quality. Another advantage of using the 50-200mm lens is the ability to get the subject that's on the move. It's quicker to focus on the subject and easier to keep in the frame if it is running left or right. Also, a telephoto usually has a higher f-number so will not be able to cope with low light - when most of the best shots happen. I have a gut feeling that the Tamron 18-270mm would give poorer results than the 55-200mm lens.

[RGBont]

Well here's a little bit more to add to the fire.... 

If you haven't viewed this site it might be of benefit to you to check out those lenses that have been mentioned so far in this forum.

Here's the home page of that site:   http://www.pbase.com/

Click on the cameras button and you'll get to the screen that lists all camera/lense makers.  Pick the make you want to look at and it should give you a list of all the cameras/lenses applicable to that make.
It's a little haunt of mine that I sometimes look through when I'm considering a lense.

Here's the direct link to the Tamron 18-270

http://www.pbase.com/cameras/tamron/af18_270_35_63_di_ii_vc_ld_aspherical_if


and the Nikon 55-200

http://www.pbase.com/cameras/nikon/af_s_dx_vr_zoom_nikkor_55_200_4_56g_if_ed


There could be a mountain of pictures taken with those lenses and/or comments by users, usually found below the screen of posted images, depending on the age of the item in question.

Hope you have some time to do some browsing... 

[RGBont]

As an aside to my previous post...   

Forgot to mention that to get details you have to click on the picture.  Details or exif info is often present below the picture, other times not.  There is an exif/hide exif button to get those details.

When going in via the lense route you'll get a mish mash of what camera was used.  Would be nice if there is a function to allow showing only those pictures taken with the specific camera.

Vice versa, if going via the camera route there will be the mish mash of what lense was used.  Again would have been nice if they had the function to allow to retrieve only those pictures taken with a specific lense.

As I said earlier, hope you have some time for browsing...   

[shooters_desire]

ok i have another plan that will put you into a prosumer camera Canon 30d + a Canon 17-85 F4-5.6 IS for 653.00 through Aderama and my guess you can get more stuff and a much better price

[Sheryl]

First Thanks Big Al for trying to make some sense of the lenses. Your imput is always a welcomed opinion. Right now I have a new problem. The great deal I was offered on the D3100 and 2 lenses seems to have been a misunderstanding on the dealer's behalf and that deal no longer exists. So now the D3100 w/2 lenses will cost more than the D40x with the single lens. I really appreciate everyone's opinions but they are so varied and conflicting it can be confusing to someone like me. But I need those opinions to help me make a decision.An educated one.
 Thanks RGBont for the links . You can be sure I'll check them out. More information is a good thing.

                 Sheryl

[Sheryl]

Hey David, What does F4-5.6 mean? And am I ready for a prosumer camera? And what do you mean I could get more stuff? How old is the Canon 30D? Is it something I could find in a store somewhere to check it out? I would really feel better about my decision if I could handle these cameras for myself. You've always got another idea ,don't you? lol You are the information highway!

     Sheryl

[shooters_desire]

If your still interested in the D3100 with the 18-55vr + 55-200 lens you can get it still for under 700.00 + they can help you out with the other stuff you want
http://www.adorama.com/INKD3100KL1.html
While your at it get them to believe you want to buy then act like your not interested but tell them the things you want then once they feel they got you where they want tell them your just not wanting to spend that much and your looking at the same deal with Jack's. Then they will bend

[Sheryl]

I'm really not seeing much difference between the 55-200 lens and the Tamron lens. The quality looks vurtually the same to me. Does that help or make the decision that much harder? lol 

[RGBont]

Yep, got to think it does.... heh heh....

Any chance of a camera club in your area?  Or within a reasonable driving distance?  If you haven't already done so...

Not sure if you can google for a camera club in your area or at least get it down to your state.  Never know....  It could be worthwhile to visit a club or two and ask around - new people (ie. potential member) are always welcomed for a few meetings before having to pay a membership fee.  Can ask anyone who may have what you are similarly looking for... the bigger the club with more members there is the better chance of finding someone who would have what you're seeking.

I'm sure you will come to a decision that you will be happy with and that it will do you for a good many years. 
I still remember the time I took when I acquired my first camera, a Konica Auto-Reflex, over a Pentax at that time so many years ago.

[shooters_desire]

checkout this group on flickr. Its a nikon d3100 group. Also type in meetup group for your area or the closest big city around like Danville,IL.
Here's a photography group Near you'
http://photo.meetup.com/cities/us/61801/

http://www.flickr.com/groups/1498351@N24/

Sheryl go for the Nikon D3100 deal at Aderama. The 18-55VR & the 55-200. For now that would do you well i believe for 697.00 also don't let them talk you into Insurance because you can add it to your home owners policy as a writer for less then 100.00 a year

[BigAl]

...
 What does F4-5.6 mean? And am I ready for a prosumer camera?
...

It means that you can only get the brightness of F4 at the wider angles of the zoom range; at the narrower (telephoto) end of the range it will be F5.6.

"Prosumer" is a merge of the words "Professional" and "Consumer" and indicates that it sits at the bottom end of one market and the top end of the other. It is generally a loose definition with no hard and fast rules to say where the various ranges start and finish. Better to let cost and features be your guide.

[Sheryl]

RGBont, We do have a very small camera club nearby and I am already checking with them about their cameras. Great idea!!

David, I'll check out both links and the Aderama site. Thanks once again.

Big Al, thanks for explaining what those numbers mean and about the prosumer vs consumer. Thanks for your advise.


                  Sheryl

[Sheryl]

What do you all think about the Nikon D3000? I can get a nice deal on it with kit lens and 55-200 lens,both vr lenses. How does it compare to the D3100?

[shooters_desire]

Sheryl call jacks and speak with Joe tell him your interested in the D3100 instead. Ask trhem what used lens combo they can put together with a new D3100. Also see if they will take the 18-55vr in a trade for another quality lens instead.

[Sheryl]

I can give it a try. I'm not so good at bargaining especially when I don't know what I'm talking about.It'd have to be later this afternoon before I can get to it. Have an appointment this morning.

             Thanks,
           Sheryl

[scoundrel1728]

The D3000 is the predecessor to the D3100.  Because the D3000 is now an "old" model, you can now find it cheaper.  You will need to compare the features between the two models to see if any improvements in the D3100 are worth the difference in price.

To add on to Alan's description of what "f/4-5.6" means:
Lenses are often described by what are regarded as their most important attributes: manufacturer, focal length or focal length range, and maximum aperture.  For prime lenses, i.e., lenses without zoom capability, the focal length and maximum (physical) aperture are each single numbers.  The lower the number, the brighter the image the lens can produce. 

In contrast, a zoom has a focal length range.  Many but not all zoom lenses have varying maximum apertures depending on the zoom settings.  The diameter of the front elements of a lens, and hence the lens' overall diameter and to a lesser extent its weight and expense in producing it, are governed by the f-number to which the lens opens up at the telephoto end.  Keeping the "speed" - the amount to which the aperture can opens up and let in more light - at the telephoto end can therefore do a lot to keep the cost, size, and weight of the lens down.  However, the wide-angle end of the lens can still made to open up wider comparatively cheaply.  The maximum apertures of such lenses are therefore expressed as a range, the first number being the maximum aperture at the wide end; the second, the widest full telephoto aperture.  At intermediate focal length settings, the lens can open up to intermediate values, though the telephoto end maximum opening is usually closer to the maximum brightness than the wide angle end over much of the range.  For lenses that maintain a constant brightness throughout their focal length range, the maximum f-number is expressed as a single number as it is with prime lenses.

By the way, for used equipment, I have found http://www.keh.com/ to be a good place.  I have bought the majority of my equipment used, including four of my six lenses, my first dSLR body, and all three of the compact digitals - "bridge" cameras, really - I now have in service.  I hear that Adorama is also a good place for used equipment as well as new and it rates well at http://www.resellerratings.com/ which is my preferred place to check out potential vendors, but so far I have made only one purchase there.  For new equipment, I tend to check out http://www.bhphotovideo.com/ instead.

[Sheryl]

Thanks Scoundrel for all that information. Not sure I understand it all, but you did clear it up for me somewhat. Thanks for the links. I'll be sure and check them out. I'm planning on doing a comparison between the D3000 and the D3100 when I get the time. There has just been sooo much information and sooo many links passed on to me that I'm having trouble keeping up.

      Thanks again,
            Sheryl

[RGBont]

Hi again Sheryl -

Well I can sympathize with your situation trying to decide which camera would suit your tastes.  I can't remember how much time I spent looking for my first SLR camera back in 1967 but it was a good while before I settled on the one I picked.

As Scoundrel noted, a comparison would have to be made between the D3000 and D3100.  I'm not sure if you feel rushed to decide on the D3000 as there may not be that much time before they are no longer on stock shelves. 

I googled    "   compare d3000 d3100  " and came up with some big number (over a million) but I don't think they were all on the same subject.  It is possible that you may have already done so?  If not, I think the first page will suffice for you to pick and choose.  I picked a couple and found them useful and probably may raise more questions than answers as you noted you are not familiar with all the "tech" terms being bandied about.  I'm also not going to list those two urls that I visited... I'll leave that up to you when you google as I did when you have the time.

By all means keep asking questions.


Ross

[Sheryl]

RgBont, looks like I'm not going to be able to purchase the D3100 afterall. So right now I'm trying to decide between the D40X with Tamron vr 18-270 lens or a D3000 with kit lens and 55-200 vr lens. Any opinions? The D40X is a little cheaper but not by too much.


            Opinions always welcome,
            Sheryl

[Sheryl]

Is a CCD sensor a good or bad thing? Are higher megapixels better than lower megapixels? For instance 14 compared to 10.

[Anita]

" The difference in photo quality between 10-, 12-, and 14-megapixel cameras simply wasn't great enough to justify the extra cost. The main problem is that the photo quality and performance is only as good as all of the camera components, such as the lens and image processor. As with all cameras, it's better to pick a model based on the features you want and need, rather than on number of megapixels. And megapixels probably shouldn't be what makes or breaks a decision between two cameras, either. "

Sheryl,  Here's the site where that quote came from.   http://reviews.cnet.com/14-megapixel-ultracompact-cameras/

[Anita]

" CCD sensors create high-quality, low-noise images. CMOS sensors are generally more susceptible to noise. "

Sheryl, Here's the site where that quote came from.. it explains about CCDs in detail. 

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/cameras-photography/digital/digital-camera2.htm

[Sheryl]

Thanks Anita for those links and the info. All imput is welcome.

[scoundrel1728]

Is a CCD sensor a good or bad thing? Are higher megapixels better than lower megapixels? For instance 14 compared to 10.

Don't fall for the "more pixels = better image quality" myth.  There is a tradeoff between high resolution and better low-light performance.  Unless you plan to make drastic crops or are in the habit of making big (16 x 20 inch or bigger) enlargements, you probably won't notice the resolution difference between 10 and 15 megapixels.  However, as pixel count goes up, the active area - and light sensitivity of each pixel - goes down.  You therefore start picking up pixel noise and losing dynamic range - the ability to hold detail in the brightest and darkest parts of your image simultaneously.

[BigAl]

Don't fall for the "more pixels = better image quality" myth.  There is a tradeoff between high resolution and better low-light performance.  Unless you plan to make drastic crops or are in the habit of making big (16 x 20 inch or bigger) enlargements, you probably won't notice the resolution difference between 10 and 15 megapixels.  However, as pixel count goes up, the active area - and light sensitivity of each pixel - goes down.  You therefore start picking up pixel noise and losing dynamic range - the ability to hold detail in the brightest and darkest parts of your image simultaneously.

Just to add to that:
This is why top-of-the-range DSLRs employ a full-frame sensor. You get more pixels without the resultant drop in image quality. But the downside of this is that you pay a heck of a lot more for a lens to focus light to cover the full surface.

[Sheryl]

Thanks Guys. I'm going out today in search of a camera, wish me luck! Just shopping, not purchasing just yet.

[scoundrel1728]

Don't fall for the "more pixels = better image quality" myth.  There is a tradeoff between high resolution and better low-light performance.  Unless you plan to make drastic crops or are in the habit of making big (16 x 20 inch or bigger) enlargements, you probably won't notice the resolution difference between 10 and 15 megapixels.  However, as pixel count goes up, the active area - and light sensitivity of each pixel - goes down.  You therefore start picking up pixel noise and losing dynamic range - the ability to hold detail in the brightest and darkest parts of your image simultaneously.

Just to add to that:
This is why top-of-the-range DSLRs employ a full-frame sensor. You get more pixels without the resultant drop in image quality. But the downside of this is that you pay a heck of a lot more for a lens to focus light to cover the full surface.

True enough.  You also pay a lot more for the camera body itself, but I don't think all of that extra price has to do with the bigger imager.  These are usually the company's top-of-the-line flagship models that have all the bells and whistles and have sturdier construction.  The buyers of these cameras also tend to be less cost-sensitive than the purchasers of the lower-end models.  The companies can therefore get away with charging more than they otherwise could.