D3100 kit comes with kitlens 18-55 which has autofocus function
wat u hear shud be that D3100 dun have its built-in autofocus motor(autofocus needs a motor)
it relies on motor in lenses to achieve autofocus
so if u use lenses without motor(usually older model lenses), u cant have auto focus as there is no motor both on D3100 n d lens

for me i would go for 1st choice
as i would like to have high speed flash sync & built-in commander

consumer does not have built in motor....but luckily nikon have motorized lens....so u dont need to worry..but lens with motor i think a bit expensive...

better get d90 and above coz have built in motor...so dont have to worry about lens auto focus..in body already have..

how much is the street price for D90 anyway?

^
I got quoted 2.45k for body only. New set. LYP

anyway guys mind to tell me how to do vignetting? purposely...

Hi people, reporting in here for the first time.

I'm one that owning a body of D3000 and this was the first camera I ever own.

Anyway, anyone know what's the market price for 24-70MM f/2.8? I would really save up and get this lens or other better lens. Thanks!

^
mind to tell us which brand you are going to get?

Oh, sorry about my non-detailed question. I would like to buy Nikon's one... As I see, most of the third party won't be as sharp as Nikon. (from certain review thru net)

^
you might want to check this.
https://forum.lowyat.net/topic/1637184

---

Added on January 20, 2011, 11:55 pmas I never tried and never do research about 24-70 I can't comment on it. sorry.

This post has been edited by aldosoesilo: Jan 20 2011, 11:55 PM

if nikon price is RM6k around dat la. and i am really interested if there any other lens better than this lens for the range~!

My friend offered me RM5350 for grey set if not mistaken. 2470 f/2.8 Nano.

Definitely have to agree with what other said, 24-70MM is the best in its range.

I would really spend that much for it, but surely not now @_@

And thanks people who told me the price =)

Been following this thread but i never spammed any pictures. Can give some comments?
All pics are unedited for comments & critics purpose. Any comments are welcomed! Thanks!




^ the horizon is not flat/balanced ..hehe.





purposely made it overexposed


..and purposely made it underexposed ...not sure which one is better.


**my first photography outing with some frens. hehe.

This post has been edited by mmohdnor: Jan 21 2011, 01:15 AM

Since you already have the 59mm f/1.8d, go for D90, plus it offers more controls.

If you prefer to get the D3100, get the 35mm f/1.8G DX instead of the 50mm f/1.4G; It's half the price of the 1.4G, and 35mm on DX = 52.5mm, it's more convenient for you to shoot (especially for baby). The 50mm, you will need to stand further slightly further distance, it's crucial if space if a concern.

actually i dont really get the point of showing unedited pics. it's like showing us unfinished work. if showing a comparison, before and after is ok.

anyway, your shots are ok except as you know....u gotta straighten it.

SOOC pics cannot be used ka? most sports photos is unedited ok....

---

Added on January 21, 2011, 1:26 am
unedited pic.. seems unfinished work for u?

This post has been edited by razuryza: Jan 21 2011, 01:26 AM

If you can afford it, then go for Nikon one definitely.

For third party, it may not be as sharp and there might be other issues as well, but the price difference may be more than double or even triple. So, it depends on your budget.

For DX body, 24-70 might not be wide enough, you might want to consider 17-55; but then if you're planning to upgrade to FX body in near future, then 24-70 can be considered.

The 17-55 range, Tamron counterpart have pretty good sharpness, but have some of its own issues, but it's much more cheaper alternative, and for a little more, you can even get a VC (Vibration Compensation) version. With the cost save here, you can buy some primes or save for telephoto zooms.

All in all, it depends on your own decision, what you need, what you're looking for and your affordability/budget.

i mean like sports photos though it's unedited but at least straighten/crop, simple, basic stuffs.

there's no added advantage of telling us it's unedited.

This post has been edited by fisherman10: Jan 21 2011, 01:30 AM

You might want to try some polarizing filter?

For your last 2 picture of overexposed and underexposed, seems like you're facing the common problems. You can try using the polarizing filter or combine the 2 picture into HDR.

if u can compose well, those bolded stuff also no need to do la.. so.. unedited photo still valid

aa yeah.. nowadays people dont care edited or not.. coz in the end.. any nice pic, people will straight away thinks 'all pp ma.. all can..'

thanks fisherman10. i got ur point. but my intention was to know what will u guys do/fix to the unedited pictures i shared, if u were to share the pics to ppl or forums.
yeah, i'll be doing the editing later just wanted to get some additional feedback's before i start doing it.

nice cat!

yeah, my lenses only have nikon UV filter that time. any filter that u recommend? my fren had a cpl filter at the shooting. should have tried that.
i'll trying the hdr too. thanks for the comments andy214.

This post has been edited by mmohdnor: Jan 21 2011, 01:45 AM