Looking for camera geek opinions.....

[Kavik]

Okay, so for a while now I've been wanting to get a nice camera...tired of these little point and shoot digitals that work great for one type of picture, and suck for anything else.

I don't do a ton of photography currently, but would like to get more into it.
I know there's going to be a lot to learn shooting manually with a digital slr, and I'm okay with that.
I know I don't need top of the line, but I don't want to be wishing I bought a better camera and buying another one in a year.
Crisp, detailed macro photography is of high importance


anyway, this is the one I'm considering: Nikon D5100 16.2MP Digital SLR Camera with 18-55mm Lens & Extra 55-300mm Lens
That along with a tripod and a home made light box is what I'm thinking for starters, then maybe upgrading the flash down the road (unless anyone can tell me that the built in flash sucks and there's a not to expensive add on that's worth buying right away?)

It seems to get great reviews, and I have determined the differences between this and the D7000 aren't worth another $800 to me.  But does anyone have any thoughts, opinions or (preferably) personal experience with this particular camera or these lenses?

thanks 

[skyphix]

The learning curve shooting manual with a digital SLR isn't too bad and its a lot cheaper doing that than shooting a ton of film to learn.

Any digital SLR from one of the major manufacturers (Canon, Nikon, Sony) will be more than adequate for what you want to do with it, especially up in that price range. Until you're experienced you won't really notice a ton with lens quality (and I don't know anything about those lenses, so don't think they're bad or anything), and even then you can work around the limitations. I've photographed a wedding with cheap lenses and the photos came out pretty good.

As far as the tripod and light box... don't worry about getting those things right away. Learn the camera, composition, and how to make photos before you get fancy with more gear. I know its easy to want more stuff because you're probably like me and like gadgetry, but you can do a lot with a little in this case and a nice DSLR body and two lenses is far more than a lot of people use to get some of the amazing photos you'll find. I use one body and one, fixed length lens... rarely a zoom at all, never a tripod, never a flash.

[hydrochloric]

I would love to get a DSLR, but that sort of item is out of my price range for now.

What I did is found a point-and-shoot that had as many of the features I could get that you'd normally see on a DSLR, and learned to take good pictures with an acceptable camera.  If you've got time to learn and experiment, Photoshop and an advanced P&S can net you some fairly good results.

(All that said, I don't really know how advanced you're talking, this is just my .02, and as such may be useless.)

[Bugeye Baru]

I have the Canon T3i with the standard 18-55 lens and I have taken some amazing photographs.  I don't use a manual focus, nor do I care to, so auto works just fine for me.  I used sony/canon point and shoots for years and, while convenient, they are no match for a DSLR.  Plain and simple.  Canon has a new "little" point and shoot that they claim is as good.  I have no idea. 
My advice, spend the money now on as expensive a body as you can.  You can always buy another lens down the road but the body is the brains of the operation.  Also, why would you be getting an extra zoom lens of that length when macro is so important to you?  How about a macro lens? 
I'm going to be getting this for Christmas to replace my 18-55.  I've done a lot of research and it looks to meet my budget and zoom needs (also, I don't need a super fast lens). 
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-18-200mm-3-5-5-6-Standard-Lens/dp/B001ET6QFY
Good luck with whatever you decide upon and, if you werent thinking of it, get lens shields for your lenses and the highest speed memory card you can afford.

[Kavik]

Okay, maybe I should give a little more info.....
  My dad was a professional photographer off and on back in the day, my younger sister has a retarded amount of time and money invested in her photography, my older sisters ex-bf does professional photography.....you just can't take a really nice picture in my family without someone inevitably asking you about your aperture or f-stop or lighting setup, etc.  I'm always the one who says "uhhhh, I pressed the button, it went click" lol.  Old family photos from when I was I kid used to list all that on the backs of the photos along with light meter readings and measured distances from the camera.  There was no photoshop, if there were effects added it was done with the choice of film, filters or in the development.
  I can take decent shots based on 'feel', but if you said you wanted a picture of something 4' away in low light, I couldn't tell you which lens to grab or what other settings to go with....those are the things I'm talking about needing to learn.  I know point and shoots and even auto focusing on dslr's can handle most of that for you, but I'd like to be capable of being more hands on with it when I want to be.
 

Skyphix:
 A big part of what got me looking at cameras again has to do with the straight razor restorations I've been working on.  Closeups of polished blades with a flash just don't work LOL   All things considered, another $50 for a tripod isn't a very big concern, and a decent lightbox can be thrown together for like $20 as opposed to buying one for $100+

hydrochloric:
  I'm certainly not an expert, but I do know my way around a few different photo editing programs.  I'm just always impressed when I can see someone take a picture that doesn't need all that post processing to look good.  Don't get me wrong, taking a crappy photo and making it look good is a skill in and of itself, just on the other end of what I'm looking for here.

Baru:
  I was looking at that camera first, but I've had a few people steer me towards Nikon over Canon (for DSLR's anyway).  I've used Canon in the past, and have nothing against them, just keep hearing again and again that Nikon has a leg up on the cameras, and better lenses for the money.
  As for the lenses....I dunno, that just happened to be in the bundle.  I mean, I will want a zoom lens some times so I figured it wouldn't be a bad thing to have.  But will I not be able to get decent closeups out of the 18-55 lens?  That's what I don't know....and the "Extreme Closeup" lens they have from Nikon costs $950 on it's own, I'm not ready to spend that on a single lens.  I've read great things about the Tamron 90mm macro lens that costs half that, but isn't available at best buy, so I would have to buy that later 
(To be honest, if I get this it's going on 0% interest credit payments because I have the credit available there after paying off my tv.  It goes against my current debt reduction plan, but all it boils down to is another month and a half of payments past my current scheduled payoff plan)

[darroj]

I've shot with a Nikon D40, Canon XSi, and Canon T2i... they're all good. Lenses matter more. I currently use the sigma 18-250mm as a 'walk around lens' and find that it hardly ever leaves the camera... Personally I'd advise you to not getting either of the kit lenses (purchasing the camera as body only.) My dad started with both of those lenses, had to switch all the time... so he sold them and has since purchased a Tamron 18-270mm.  None of the large range lenses I mentioned are going to be pro quality, especially at different focal lengths, but they're great all purpose lenses IMHO if you're just look for personal pictures.

[skyphix]

Skyphix:
 A big part of what got me looking at cameras again has to do with the straight razor restorations I've been working on.  Closeups of polished blades with a flash just don't work LOL   All things considered, another $50 for a tripod isn't a very big concern, and a decent lightbox can be thrown together for like $20 as opposed to buying one for $100+

If you really want a tripod, save your money up and get a NICE tripod - $50 is the bottom edge of what will be borderline nice.

As for the lightbox... two sheets of white posterboard and some coffee filters over some CFL bulbs will get you something close using basically what you have already. You don't need special lighting to get good macro photos, while it helps, technique helps more.

Taken in a restaurant using ambient light


Using available light and a coffee filter over the built-in flash.


Same setup as above, but with a manilla folder as a back ground


More natural light macros...



All I'm saying is, use the camera. Don't worry about buying or building extras right away (I mean, you can, just don't feel like you have to rush to do that stuff is all). The right technique will net you photos of better quality than poor/unpracticed technique and more stuff.

Enjoy your foray into this and just take photos. Lots of them. Of everything. Don't be afraid for the photo to look bad, think about the rule of thirds, drawing the eye to the subject, and getting the right feel for the photo, and you'll do just fine.

[LarenF3D5]

The learning curve shooting manual with a digital SLR isn't too bad and its a lot cheaper doing that than shooting a ton of film to learn.

This. Oh my god this. I did two years of photography in high school and 6 credits (1 year) of photography in college. $600 in courses, probably over $1000 in supplies. $5 an exposure gets real old. That being said you haven't done photography until someone's turned the lights on in the dark room on you while you were opening film to get it exposed... That's living.

I haven't worked with the newer DSLRs, I've been considering one for a long time. I'd say just look for anything more involved than, "portrait, standard, kids and pets". If it lets you manage your own settings you'll be forced to learn, so long as you don't just hit auto.

Take a scene, take a shot auto, then muck around with things and see how they change. You'll learn in 20min on a DSLR what took me a year in a darkroom.

Old family photos from when I was I kid used to list all that on the backs of the photos along with light meter readings and measured distances from the camera.  There was no photoshop, if there were effects added it was done with the choice of film, filters or in the development.

Because that's how men photo edit.

[Kavik]

My dad started with both of those lenses, had to switch all the time... so he sold them and has since purchased a Tamron 18-270mm.

that's very useful to hear.....hmmmm, the only problem with that is if I buy the kit I get both the lenses for $700, whereas that Tamron lens is $5-600 then the Tamron macro lens is another $450...and not on an interest free payment plan    I hate money lol


Skyphix:  I'll look into the tripods.  Honestly, I probably wouldn't carry it around, just for keeping the closeup shots steady
For the lightbox; I was going to try paper or cloth over a cutout carboard box, if the cloth works well I might spend $10 on some pvc tubes and joints and make something that can be dismantled when not in use.....either way it'll be cheap enough for a "why not" project 

those sample pics all look good for what they are (that first one made me hungry lol), but I will definitely need more uniform lighting for highly reflective, curved metal surfaces

[hookedontronics]

I have a canon T1i, i bought it last year used for $500-, new price then was somewhere around 900-1000, so i saved a bit of coin right off the bat.  I went to a local store and looked at them and found out what i liked and what fit in my hands the best.  I origionally thought of getting a nikon but i found the nikons very odd shaped to fit in my hands.  Another feature that sold me on the canon was that all their lens are interchangable, which makes finding used lens much easier and cheaper.  I pretty much just point and shoot with it but the pictures are great, I just wanted something that took amazing pictures.

[hookedontronics]

but if you do get a nikon a guy i work with is selling his uber rare lens.  only $27,600
http://www.ebay.com/itm/110781702867?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649

[Kavik]

good god man!  okay, I'm going to stop complaining about $900 lenses now 

[darroj]

Both the Tamron and the Sigma lenses can be had for around $500. I've placed several orders through abesofmaine.com - you can find some coupon codes (LOYALTY10 is $10 off $150, LOYALTY15 is $15 off $400) and right now the tamron has a $100 rebate. Worth noting, Tamron's 18-270 PZD is the new version with a better focusing system (than the old one.)

Also, I wouldn't assume you'd need a macro lens... I think you'd be surprised how well either of the lenses I mentioned can handle macro style shots. I can take some test shots with the sigma 18-250 lens if you really want to see how it does in macro situations.

[Kavik]

the $100 rebate would definitely be of interest 

and, yeah, if you wouldn't mind some sample shots would be great to see when you get a chance 

[Kavik]

I'm sure I could get by for a while on the one lens and look at macros later, but this is tempting and I don't even have the camera yet LOL

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Tamron-SP-272E-90-mm-F-2-8-AF-Di-Lens-Nikon-/300629191421#vi-content

[deadlydave]

From some photog friends, the Cannon DSLRs tend to have a less steep learning curve at the expense of some small amount of adjust-ability and features.

[Kavik]

all the more reason to stick with the Nikon then I think....I'd rather put in a little more effort for the extra little bits, however minimal...it's just time and studying after all 

[skyphix]

I disagree with what Dave says completely, as a lifetime Canon shooter.

EDIT: ... who was forced to use a Nikon on one of my jobs

[darroj]

didn't come on last night - I'll try to get you some sample shots tonight... here's the only one that kind of qualifies that I put online I could find, but it can focus much closer than I was...

[skyphix]

You make valid points about the photos I posted - I'll take some photos of some of my chisels to give you a similar situation.

[Bugeye Baru]

I wanted to put a picture in too.  Ability of the camera to take great pictures on auto (I know, I know, but I have absolutely no interest in learning all that stuff) so, Daryl, imagine your abilities once you start to totally geek out on one...

[STiPete]

for a thousand bucks that thing better blow me and do the dishes too.

[Nismonic]

anyway, this is the one I'm considering: Nikon D5100 16.2MP Digital SLR Camera with 18-55mm Lens & Extra 55-300mm Lens

I bought the D5100 with the 18-55mm Kit Lens over the summer. I really haven't had the time to learn the camera yet but it will take very nice shots right out of the box on the auto setting if you take the time to compose the shot.

This was my first time out using the camera on "auto" the day I bought it:
 



Otherwise, it can take some pretty lack-luster shots if you just point and shoot:

[Kavik]

didn't come on last night - I'll try to get you some sample shots tonight... here's the only one that kind of qualifies that I put online I could find, but it can focus much closer than I was...

yeah, ummmm, I have no idea what that is LOL  so don't know what kind of scale I'd be looking at there.  But, don't go too nuts worrying about taking more shots unless you want to (same to you skyphix).  After researching reviews I think I'm pretty well convinced that that Tamron 18-270mm you mentioned, with the piezo motor and vibration control, is the one I want to try. 

for a thousand bucks that thing better blow me and do the dishes too.

eh, I guess it's a question of the quality of toys that you prefer 
*takes a second look at some of the longer lens measurements* or the quality of blowjob 

This was my first time out using the camera on "auto" the day I bought it / Otherwise, it can take some pretty lack-luster shots if you just point and shoot

Yeah, those first ones look pretty good, but night and day difference on that last one, doesn't even look like the same camera LOL
I'm sure there will be plenty of times when I just don't feel like fussing with it, so a good auto mode will be helpful




BTW, if anyone is as confused as I was about all these numbers and how something like 200mm actually correlates to the zoom....read this page, it helped clear up a lot for me: http://www.tamron-usa.com/lenses/learning_center/tools/focal-length-comparison.php

[deadlydave]

I disagree with what Dave says completely, as a lifetime Canon shooter.

You disagree with what I mindlessly parroted, aint no thang.

The cannon vs nikon thing is like apple vs pc, I suppose.  There are no winners, and everyone that argues about it is a loser.