so far everyone is recommending the D7000. Personally I like the D5100 better

It's smaller and lighter, easier to bring around. Flip screen is useful for overhead shooting and camwhoring (i have too few photos of myself haha). I also like the fact that all the buttons are on the right side, so you only need one hand to change settings!

focus motor depends on what lens are you actually going to buy. No point getting body with focus motor if u end up buying AF-S lenses anyway

This post has been edited by dvlzplayground: Nov 11 2012, 08:44 AM

woo



please excuse the CA.. old D40 doesn't correct these things

tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 is actually a good lens. some might say even better than nikon if not for the narrow range. the new "II" model has AF motor too.

if u want REALLY wide, can try samyang 8mm. no AF, but at that wide you wont need it

i'd buy online if i were u

i think the main point here is, even if u want to buy from a shop and not sure if they're trustworthy or not, just buy the camera and lens kit and that's all. bag and SD card should be free.

it's when they start to offer you 'packages' like tripod or adapter this and filter that, for 'a good price', you should say NO.

they know it's easy for people to compare prices on the core stuff like camera and lenses so they cant con about those. people dont really know about adapters and filters and tripods so that's where they take advantage

when exactly is your trip? if it's early next year, i'd say get the D3200/D5100 instead of waiting for the D5200. so you can have a DSLR to practice with before you go in your trip if wait for D5200, terus go trip but still dunno how to use, spoil laa hehehe

between the two models, they're very very similar indeed. i prefer the D5100's swivel screen (it's rarely useful, but when you need it, it's there!).

well you know te camera sensor is like the film right? try to think the lens as a window, which lets light fall onto the sensor

a DX sensor is relatively small. to have light cover the whole DX sensor, u only need a small window = DX lens.

FX sensor is bigger. so u need a bigger window (FX lens) to enable light to cover the whole sensor surface.

so if u use a DX lens on an FX sensor...that's like having a small window that cannot let enough light to cover the whole FX sensor area. only the middle part can get light, the outer sides cannot. so an FX camera would crop / remove these unused areas at the side, else u end up with black borders around ur photo.

using FX lens on DX sensor is fine...the big window can still cover the small sensor area

now about let's talk about crop factor.

say u have a FX lens + FX camera, and u take a photo of 3 people standing side by side. u'll get a photo of 3 people.

now use the same FX lens on DX camera, take the photo from the same position and u may get a photo with only the middle person. the FX lens still 'sends' a photo of 3 people, but since the DX sensor is smaller, only the image of the middle person falls onto the small sensor. the sensor simply doesnt have any space to receive the image of the other two people standing at the sides. so the 'outer part' of the image actually gets removed / cropped out...which looks like u're zooming in when u're not.

im definitely not sifu haha. actually no need to practice one la this stuff. focus on shooting, not on camera toys

go slap your friend u're using a D7000. part of the money you spent goes to that impressive sensor that can still perform well at high ISOs.

it's true that if ISO is too high, ull get noise. but dont be afraid to push it up. even at 6400 it should be fairly good. the good thing about increasing ISO is there isn't any significant side effects (up to a certain point of course). if u try to increase exposure by increasing shutter speed, ull get motion blur. increasing aperture is limited by ur kit lens, but even then (especially for macro) ur DOF would be too thin.

tl;dr, better to have noisy photos compared to motion blur / DOF too shallow

stay at low ISO is correct. staying at 'lowest possible ISO' is not haha. why shoot ISO 200 and risk blurry shots, rather than higher ISO with minimal noise and getting sharp sharp photos so i would say, stay at the highest possible ISO (if there's a lot of motion, or shooting in dark/dim places)...'highest' being the point just before where noise gets too ugly.

IMHO the main use of aperture is to control the DOF, not really for exposure. fastest shutter speed is almost always preferable XD

highly agree in dark areas / fast moving subjects...we always have to accept one of these things:
1) increased noise due to high ISO
2) shallow depth of field due to high aperture
3) motion blur due to slow shutter speed

(2) and (3) would easily spoil an otherwise great photo. so (1) isn't too bad if the noise is really really bad...convert to black and white lo, kawtim

This post has been edited by dvlzplayground: Dec 7 2012, 07:07 PM

maybe it was assumed that prime lenses are fast enough that u we dont need VR it does keep the price down i guess

yes. all AF-S can be used on D3100

not really... not all G lenses are AF-S. i thought like that too until i saw a G lens which is just AF not AF-S. forgot which one

not in the picture. you can assume all of us in this thread prefers nikon DSLRs to other brands, but it doesnt mean we prefer everything nikon

i think nikon compact cameras are inferior compared to others. i agree with Calvin Seak; those 3 he listed are the best cameras for their respective price range IMO. none of them are superzooms though...

This post has been edited by dvlzplayground: Dec 16 2012, 12:01 AM

yes that's pretty much the case. why the good compacts are expensive is because of the slightly bigger sensor. bigger sensor needs bigger lens. if u want that lens to be a superzoom, i guess it would need to be even bigger and you wont end up with a compact anymore ;P

I love the colours!


too grainy. as teetaatee said, maybe ISO 800 would be much better. i think the person takes too much space in the shot

go for 35mm for DX very good all rounder hehe

i want to ask, i'm looking for a sb700. is it a bad idea to buy an old ~2 years flashgun or better just buy brand new?

follow up to my post about second hand SB700.. decided not to get 2nd hand because dont know how to judge the lifespan

anyway hope u guys can clear out my dilemma here. im going to cover a wedding in a months time. my current gear is D40, 35/1.8G, 85/1.8G, no flashgun. im deciding to get either a used D90 or a new SB700.

case for D90: better IQ generally, higher fps, can command off-camera SB800 (lend from friend). i dont *really* need the built-on motor but that's just a bonus for future lah.

case for SB700: as mentioned, my friend will lend me a SB800 a day b4 the wedding itself. i never used a flashgun before. i've read and watched videos a lot and i feel i understand the theory (bounce, balancing flash and ambient etc) but im not sure i can use the flash effectively with no 'training period'. thus getting my own SB700 earlier i can train first

right now i can only afford either one. which one to get (or dont get either)? please advise :S

thanks both of you. D90 it is hopefully i'll get up to speed with the SB800 haha

exactly! this is the only reason i watch unboxing videos haha.

just got myself a used D90!!! *slowpoke*

damnn so many new functions compared to my D40. lots to learn.