Just Signed Up Today - Beginners Questions - Camera/Lens

[The Fisher King]

Hello.

I have learned alot already today reading other newby threads about the right camera and lens choices for them,but I still have a couple of questions about my camera package.

While on the local beach I saw a couple of sea eagles sitting side by side and I thought that would be a great photo.

They were about 50m away from me and about 3m above my feet on a log at the top of the sand dunes.

So from what I have just read a 200mm lens would do the trick giving me some versatility as well for other shots.

Were I live there is plenty of reptiles also hoping the 200mm will allow a quality closer shot.

I also googled review of the Nikon D3400/D3500 which seems a very good learners choice.

I also read here spending too much $$$$$$$$$ as a newby is not wise plus carrying in around too much weight is not really needed not knowing what I am doing.

I think the Nikon D3400/D3500 with the 200mm lens is my camera although I am not rushing in doing my due diligence.

Please help me to confirm such a choice or deny it adding your valued suggestions.

Thanks for your help and advice.

The Fisher King

[ricktas]

As an initial investment, I would look at something like an 18-200mm lens. Yes a 200mm prime lens is going to get those eagles well, but what if you want to take a sunset shot? Something like the 18-200 zoom is going to let you get your birds and reptiles, but also let you experience other genre as well. If after a while you are still enjoying your photography and know what genre you are going to shoot, then start looking at things like 200/300/400mm prime lenses, or if you decide landscapes are more fun you can start looking at the wide angle lens options.

I am merely suggesting this as you might be limiting what you can photograph, as a beginner, by going with a straight 200mm lens.

[nardes]

I use a Canon 100-400mm F4.5/5.6 L Mk II for most of my birding photography and I have found that maybe 95% of my photos of birds are taken at the 400mm end. Even at 400mm, I like my larger sized birds to be around 10-15 metres away with smaller birds less than 10 metres if possible. These preconditions have produced my most pleasing bird shots.

Another good feature of this lens is that it has a minimum focusing distance of just under 1 metre, which makes it useful for getting close to subjects such as butterflies and dragonflies.

But it is a heavy lens and is also quite expensive.

Just my 2c worth.

Cheers

Dennis

[Mark L]

I'd like to see the sea-eagle photos.
If you are thinking about getting into the bird photography then 200mm just doesn't work.

[The Fisher King]

I'd like to see the sea-eagle photos.
If you are thinking about getting into the bird photography then 200mm just doesn't work.

Sorry Mark but I didn't have my little Canon IXUS with me,I was metal detecting on the beach at the time.

But I am sure why you would understand why I want a good camera missing out on a potential photo of a life time.

Thanks for the advice

[tandeejay]

I've got a Nikon 55-300mm, and when I'm out in nature, I often find that the 300mm isn't enough. but that is what I have at the moment, so I'm learning to work within its capabilities. As Nardes said, getting within 15m is best. I got some nice ones of a blue wren the other day. It was only about 1.5m away...

I would have thought at 50m, a 200mm lens on a 1.5x crop sensor would not do justice to a sea eagle.

Doing your due diligence research is commendable!

[The Fisher King]

Thankyou to all contributors to my thread so far which has given plenty to think about.

To be honest with you I considered the Nikon Coolpix B700 with a 60 x optical zoom before I read about the Nikon D3400/3500 SLR's camera's now D5100.

Yes I am already very sure that any good DSLR would be better than the Coolpix,but the trade off is the DSLR is more complicated and certainly much more expensive regarding my desired lenses for bird photo's e.g. 400mm

I could buy a new Coolpix for $500.00 just point and shoot so to speak or a very good hardly used D5100 with the 55mm and 300mm lenses with accessories for $500

But saying all of that I am guessing the Coolpix 60 x zoom won't help me at 50m to photo a pair of Sea eagles sitting side by side.

If you might be stating the obvious please state it anyway.

Thankyou.

The F King

[Tannin]

Hi Fisher King. Unfortunately, what you are hearing from people like Mark L and Nardes is entirely correct. 200mm is hopelessly short for bird photography. 400 is skimping but with skill and patience you can just barely get away with it. Even at the 600 and 840mm focal lengths bird photographers habitually work at, getting close enough to the bird remains a constant challenge.

Broadly speaking, it is easy to design and manufacture medium-length lenses (which makes them reasonably cheap and small and light) but more difficult to design and manufacture very short lenses and very long ones. For this reason, wide-angle lenses tend to be quite large and rather expensive, and long lenses (anything over about 300mm) tend to be very large and very expensive. Added to this, lenses at the extremes (e.g., 10mm ultra-wides; 600mm birding lenses) are, by their very nature, pushing the envelope of the possible. As a result, these are not items it is wise to skimp on.

Where I'm going here is the point that specialist lenses (such as one suitable for your sea eagles) are big, heavy, and very expensive. Don't buy one until you are sure you really want it, and if and when you do, don't buy a cheap one. There are no short cuts. (Well, OK, there are short cuts. But they don't work and always end in tears.)

The good news, however, is that you will spend nearly all your photographic time doing "normal" stuff, and normal lenses for everyday non-specialist use are cheap and very good. Start with one of those, and gain some experience with it. In time, your other needs will become clear, and you can address them them. Interchangeable lens camera are great because you can always add stuff later!

Your final choice comes down to either a do-everything lens (such as the 18-200 Rick suggested) or a do-most-things lens, say an 18-55 or a 15-85. The do-everything lens will be one or more of larger, heavier, more expensive, and/or lower quality. On the other hand, it is more versatile. The do-most-things lens will be cheaper, lighter, smaller, and sharper - but less versatile. Your choice.

And don't stress about it! Either choice will be a good place to start. Sure, there are differences, but you will get a great introduction to photography either way. And you can expand your lens collection later, selecting models that do exactly what you want to do. Enjoy!

Finally, I am unfamiliar with the Nikon world, but there may well be an equivalent set to the one I'm about to mention from Canon land. This is Canon's twin lens kit: very cheap, and remarkably good. Ridiculously good for the money, really. Canon make an 18-55mm (general purpose) and 55-250mm (telephoto) set of two, which they sell bundled with camera bodies. Because they make vast numbers of them, they are ridiculously cheap for the quality you get. You can get the twin lens kit with any of several bodies and it's a brilliant way to start. Most likely, Nikon have an equivalent other members here can tell you about.

- - - Updated - - -

PS: you are correct - the Coolpix isn't even in the same postcode if you are looking at tough subjects like birds.

[arthurking83]

If you can stretch the budget to a D5500, you'd be doing yourself a huge favour.
While they have the same sensors, there are a few little body specific advantages in the D5500 over the D3xxx models.
Very much worth the upgrade.

And I'd reckon a good value for money lens kit could be a Nikon 18-140VR plus a Tamron 100-400VC.

D5100 is a good camera, but this is compared to it's peers at the time it was a newer model.
D5300 uses the same 24Mp sensor as the D5500, so it'd be a better cheaper alternative.
More specifically, it's not the extra resolution that makes it better, it's that the actual sensor is a better sensor overall(in terms of light gathering ability) .. and so with elevated ISO values that will almost certainly be required with your chosen subject interest .. that higher ISO output quality will be an advantage.
I'd recommend that any Nikon Dx camera model to seek would be:
D3200 and higher if lowest price is the priority.
D5300 and higher if future proofing and price are more flexible
D7100 and higher is you can extend the cost of the camera further again.

ps. DSLR isn't 'more complex'!
This is a generally accepted myth.
Some DSLRs can be 'more complex' but the additional complexity is usually contained within complex menus.
Out of the box tho, DSLR, or mirrorless are no more complex to use than any other camera.

A better way to describe a DSLR compared to say a coolpix, is that the DSLR can be made more flexible, which some folks equate with complexity .. but once the flexibility features are understood, you will invariably get more consistent output results.

Oh! ... and welcome to AP

[ameerat42]

Identifying the "trade-off/s" correctly might help you to decide.

Apart from the financial difference you mentioned, you have to consider if there is a major difference
in the image quality that you might get. The B700 is "failry fully featured" with its 60X optical zoom,
optical Image Stabilisation (IS), 4K video capabilities, and fully articulated screen. On the "BUT" side
it has a very small sensor compared to the APSC-sized DSLRs listed. As in the days of film, the more
you enlarge an image, the more it degrades, because commercialism does not replace physics. The
linear difference in sensor size is nearly 4X. (Nearly 16X the area size.)

On another matter, make sure that you get the "equivalent lens reach" correct. The B700 specs list
the lens as having an equivalent reach (compared with a 35mm frame) of 24–1440 mm, even though
the actual focal length range is 4.3-258 mm.

To really know what this means, consider happens at the sensor with a 30 cm tall bird at 50m distance
when imaged by:
1) an actual 1400mm lens: image will be 14mm big
2) an actual 258mm lens : image will be 1.5mm big

Anyway, that's about it...

[Geoff79]

Some great advice here already, making my input pretty useless, lol, but coming from someone who has a 18-200mm lens, and uses it and has used it extensively for over a decade now... great all-round lens for almost everything... except birds.

It might get you an okay shot if the bird is very close, but generally speaking, as others have said, it’s not great for birds. For everything else, though, including those reptiles you speak of (assuming they’re relatively close) it’ll get you pretty good results. Great holiday lens too.

[arthurking83]

As a quick example of a half decent value for money starting kit:
On Ryda dot com currently, is a D5300 + 18-140VR lens for under $850.
An even better camera tho would be there D7100 + 18-105VR kit for just a tad under $800.

Either of those kits would initially serve you fine. D7100 would be my preference(bu6t this is a personal preference). It has body advantages over the D5xxx series that make a world of difference.
18-140 lens is slightly better than the 18-105 lens .. but I'm talking minimal differences in IQ terms. I'd happily use either as a walk around lens. The extra 35mm focal length (in my view) isn't worth the effort.
I'd prefer to save the $50, for the longer lens you probably want to get as well.

There are many good consumer level long lenses that would serve you well in Nikon land.
The two that spring to mind are the Tammy 100-400 I referred too earlier, and also the Nikon 200-500VR lens. Tammy at about $1K is cheaper .. Nikon at about $1500, will give slight IQ advantage.
Nikon will be much more heavier in it's handling(heavier and longer!) .. so you may become affected by handling fatigue with that combo.
Tammy lens is lighter and shorter .. so it's more like an 18-300 type lens, much easier to handhold.
Never underestimate the ability to handle the camera lens combo easily too. Lighter, or more specifically .. less front heavy combo .. can give better results in some instances simply due to the physics involved in hand holding.

ps. I can vouch for Ryda dot com(I won't create links and stuff to commercial sites tho) .. I got my D5500 + 18-140VR lens from them for a very good price some time back. I didn't get it for me tho, I bought it for daughter as she seemed to have outgrown her little P&S.
I personally can't hold the D5500 body. It's too small for my hand. Gets uncomfortable after a few minutes and hand cramps up. I need a larger body(ie. why my preference for something like a D7100 type camera).
But the reason I recommend the D7100 to you here, is not due to that. It's body has many features advantages over the D5xxx and D3xxx bodies. Too numerous to mention unless you absolutely want to know what and why. Some of which you may never ever want/need .. but if you do ever develop your photography interest much much further .. some of those body features can be important.

[tandeejay]

I got my D5500 in a bundle that came with an 18-55 and a 55-300. As a beginner, that was more than sufficient for me. A lot of quality issues with photos come from poor user technique. So getting an expensive lens can bring disappointment if your technique is bad. Better to learn good technique. You probably don't want to invest in an expensive lens to have in your kit as a "just in case I might see a sea eagle" but if you get that 55-300 or the likes, it gives you the chance to develop your technique and to determine if that longer lens is a worthwhile investment.

Someone once told me "don't buy new gear because you think it will improve your photography, but only consider new gear when you find a short fall in your existing gear that isn't caused by a problem in your technique"

Sent from my LG-M700 using Tapatalk

[The Fisher King]

I feel complelled to say this -

I come from a metal detecting (forum) background for the last five years being a big poster but was constantly running into complete hypocricy and hard to justify biases far from what you would understand here as if you want to.

Just the other day after being punted again for more petty reasons I finally realized that the only thing that I had in common with most of the forum members was this - we all had metal detectors

Sad to say I also joined another Australian photography forum the day before here and left within 24 hours

I had done a basic introduction less than here and had 36/38 views but NOT one comment,NOT even one

I also posted a basic camera/lens post and you guess it,nothing again so sad.

I had to contact management to unsubscribe now knowing I was on the wrong forum because I could not find the out key and I was banned NEVER to return they said

Anyway I am very very pleased to say that this photography forum has far exceeded my expectations

Thankyou very much for helping me in my embroyonic photographic journey tolerating my often asked questions

I am convinced that you have a higher I.Q. than average

Thanks again

The Fisher King

[ameerat42]

Without pursuing the themes you have just described (and it's good that no names were mentioned),
I will just say that you have independently hit upon a factor that makes a forum work - open interaction.

[The Fisher King]

Quick Lens Question Please - Tamron Lens

This 70 - 300mm Tamron lens is from a Nikon D3000 - will it fit a Nikon D3200

I don't know very much but I say yes but more importantly what do you say - ?

Can you also tell me the optimum middle use for this lens

Also - does the D3200 have RAW editing ?

Thanks

[Geoff79]

Someone once told me "don't buy new gear because you think it will improve your photography, but only consider new gear when you find a short fall in your existing gear that isn't caused by a problem in your technique"

Excellent advice. I’ve had a SLR for I think 11 or 12 years now and I just bought what is essentially my third lens. Got by for an age with my Canon 18-200mm (and/or Tamron 18-250mm kit lens) before I wanted to get more scenery in frame in my landscapes so I got a wide angle lens, and just recently I really took to macro photography, which requires a macro lens. Extension tubes and snap-ons do a solid job, but a prime macro lens is delicious. Next one will be a zoom lens, but that’s possibly decades away, if ever...

Anyway, what a ramble. John posted above about an 18-55mm and 55-300mm kit lenses. That would see you through for a long time if you scored something like that.

[The Fisher King]

Thanks Geoff for reminding me but - does the lens from a D3000 fit a D3200 ?

Cheers

[tandeejay]

D3xxx, D5xxx, D7XXX, D500, D300 are all Dx cameras so lens's that fit one will fit the other. The FX lenses will also work on a DX body, however, that is where the 1.5x crop factor comes in... if you had the 70-200 FX lens, it would be 70-200mm on an FX body, but the Dx bodies would have the same framing as a 105-300mm (Note howerver, that the DOF is not equivalent... I'm sure there would be someone on here who could explain why the DOF is not equivelant...)

Note however, that Non nikon lenses may have issues on different bodies... (to do with the camera controling things like autofocus and aperture) My father has a Sigma 150-500mm lens that works fine on his D3100, but my D5500 can't control the autofocus. However, this would be correctable by installing a later firmware on the lens. Nikon does not guarantee compatibility for body upgrades with non-nikon lenses. So not sure if your referenced Tameron lens would have issues on a later body or not. I have no experience with tamron lenses. also some older lenses do not have a built in focus motor, so require a body that can drive the focus mechanism. the D3xx and D5xx series of nikons can't control focus on a lens that has no focus motor.

[ameerat42]

...why the DOF is not equivelant...)

TFK, go and check out the idea of "reach" again. That is related to what Tandeejay is saying about
framing. The smaller sensor size effectively "crops" (hence the name) the field of view of the FX lens
so that the resulting "view" is like that of a longer focal length lens - a 1.6x longer FL. Again, you do
NOT, however, get an actual increase in focal length.

As for changed DOF, it is partly due to the cropped field of view, and partly due to the increased
aperture size at any given f-stop.

There's a relation between f-stop and aperture. The two terms are not the same.