I just ordered my first DSLR camera!

[TruckerDave]

I used to carry a DSLR and all the lenses. Don't any more. Two things 1. The weight and 2. IPhone takes better pictures. The unbelievable discounts this Christmas confirm that their market is dwindling. Sell you Nikon stock.

 

An iPhone can take good pictures...but, pics takes with a DSLR in the hands of someone who knows what they are doing will blow away camera phone pics.

[cruises42]

My husband bought be a Nikon D3400 for my birthday the other day. I am just a point and shoot person (I use a

Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS60).

I don't think I'll want to go to manual. I want to be able to zoom in and get close-up pictures of the moon or of tiny flowers or snowflakes (not much bigger than a pinhead). So far I don't think I can do either of those things with this camera and wonder if it's worth keeping it. My current camera gives me pretty good pictures of the moon and OK pictures of tiny things (on Macro zoom)

[Ozzydog]

A DSLR is great if you intend to become serious about photography. Whether or not you intend to become a serious photographer taking a new one on a trip before you are familiar with it is probably not a great idea.

By the way - some time ago I was recommending a 18-400mm Tamron for its great flexibility. I take that back. 1. It malfunctioned and the repair didn't help. I wish that I had bought it from B and H Photo, but I didn't. Now I have to hope that the local camera shop will take it back. 2. It's pretty heavy to schlep around all day. 3. It doesn't deliver the quality that I want - I should have known better. I did know better.

[havoc315]

My husband bought be a Nikon D3400 for my birthday the other day. I am just a point and shoot person (I use a

Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS60).

I don't think I'll want to go to manual. I want to be able to zoom in and get close-up pictures of the moon or of tiny flowers or snowflakes (not much bigger than a pinhead). So far I don't think I can do either of those things with this camera and wonder if it's worth keeping it. My current camera gives me pretty good pictures of the moon and OK pictures of tiny things (on Macro zoom)

 

Your camera absolutely can do those things.

But

As opposed to a point and shoot, dslrs have different lenses for different purposes.

For those extreme close-ups, you need a true macro lens. They let you get within an inch of your subject for extreme magnification.

 

For example:

 

The moon requires a telephoto lens, like the 70-300..

 

[havoc315]

A DSLR is great if you intend to become serious about photography. Whether or not you intend to become a serious photographer taking a new one on a trip before you are familiar with it is probably not a great idea.

By the way - some time ago I was recommending a 18-400mm Tamron for its great flexibility. I take that back. 1. It malfunctioned and the repair didn't help. I wish that I had bought it from B and H Photo, but I didn't. Now I have to hope that the local camera shop will take it back. 2. It's pretty heavy to schlep around all day. 3. It doesn't deliver the quality that I want - I should have known better. I did know better.

 

This includes my rant against super zooms:

http://enthusiastphotoblog.com/2018/01/25/the-two-lens-travel-solution/

[Marvy Mare]

My husband bought be a Nikon D3400 for my birthday the other day. I am just a point and shoot person (I use a

Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS60).

I don't think I'll want to go to manual. I want to be able to zoom in and get close-up pictures of the moon or of tiny flowers or snowflakes (not much bigger than a pinhead). So far I don't think I can do either of those things with this camera and wonder if it's worth keeping it. My current camera gives me pretty good pictures of the moon and OK pictures of tiny things (on Macro zoom)

 

 

 

My first DSLR was a Nikon 3300 & I went from a point & shoot. The 3400 is very similar & perfect for someone learning photography. You can use this camera on auto mode. There are a number of different auto settings. Manual takes some learning. As another poster stated; you can’t do everything with the kit lens and need to purchase other lenses for different purposes. If you do want to get serious about photography there are lots of good guides for this camera - on line & on Amazon. If not, return the camera or sell it & enjoy your point & shoot.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[gambit57]

Google, KenRockwell, he writes all about Nikon cameras. I down loaded the instruction manual for my camera from his site.

Allan

 

Just don't believe everything he writes. He has his opinions that aren't universally shared, and he's condescending as all gets out. His sample photos aren't very good either so I wouldn't follow his settings religiously.

 

He's got lots of helpful info for newbies, so I still recommend his site for newbies. When you get better, you'll inevitably be able to figure out where he's just blowing hot air. I don't think he's trying anymore. He's stopped posting useful info for a few years now. His reviews used to be helpful to beginners, but now they're just a rehash of specs with some vague, snarky comments.

[cruises42]

Your camera absolutely can do those things.

But

As opposed to a point and shoot, dslrs have different lenses for different purposes.

For those extreme close-ups, you need a true macro lens. They let you get within an inch of your subject for extreme magnification.

 

For example:

 

The moon requires a telephoto lens, like the 70-300..

 

 

My first DSLR was a Nikon 3300 & I went from a point & shoot. The 3400 is very similar & perfect for someone learning photography. You can use this camera on auto mode. There are a number of different auto settings. Manual takes some learning. As another poster stated; you can’t do everything with the kit lens and need to purchase other lenses for different purposes. If you do want to get serious about photography there are lots of good guides for this camera - on line & on Amazon. If not, return the camera or sell it & enjoy your point & shoot.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

If anyone can help me with lenses I would greatly appreciate it. My husband also got me the book Nikon D3400 for dummies and it really doesn't go into explaining lenses. The lenses I have are AF-P DX NZIKKOR 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR,

AF-P DX NZIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3G ED and Vivitar 0.43x Professional Wide Angle Lens with Macro. I really don't know what all those numbers mean. I've been using the 70-300 and it doesn't zoom nearly as much as I would like. I take lots of pictures of birds in our yard and want them to be really close up (basically filling the screen). The same goes for moon pictures.

[cruises42]

My point and shoot Panasonic has a 30X zoom so I would like the Nikon to have at least that.

[havoc315]

My point and shoot Panasonic has a 30X zoom so I would like the Nikon to have at least that.

 

That’s not how dslr lenses are made. In fact, there isn’t a single “30x” lens in existence for dslrs.

You have 2 lenses — a 3x lens (18——>55... 55 is 3 times 18). And you have a 4x lens (70—>300, 300 is 4 Times 70).

Now, you could have a 600mm prime lens — it would be 1x. But it would bring those birds MUCH closer than your current lenses.

 

If your p&s was 30x, it was probably the equivalent to your d3400 of about 18mm to 540mm.

There is no such dslr lens that will cover the whole range of 18mm to 540mm.

But on the long side, there are a few 500-600mm lenses.

 

This is among your most affordable options for that range, just be aware the lens is a bit heavy:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1277357-REG/tamron_sp_150_600mm_f_5_6_3_di.html

[cruises42]

That’s not how dslr lenses are made. In fact, there isn’t a single “30x” lens in existence for dslrs.

You have 2 lenses — a 3x lens (18——>55... 55 is 3 times 18). And you have a 4x lens (70—>300, 300 is 4 Times 70).

Now, you could have a 600mm prime lens — it would be 1x. But it would bring those birds MUCH closer than your current lenses.

 

If your p&s was 30x, it was probably the equivalent to your d3400 of about 18mm to 540mm.

There is no such dslr lens that will cover the whole range of 18mm to 540mm.

But on the long side, there are a few 500-600mm lenses.

 

This is among your most affordable options for that range, just be aware the lens is a bit heavy:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1277357-REG/tamron_sp_150_600mm_f_5_6_3_di.html[/quote

I don't quite understand what you are saying but it seems to me that my p&s will give me much better zoom than the Nikon. I can't even get close with the Nikon unless I want to spend a lot of money.

As I said I don't know anything about lenses, so this is a dumb question...can you use the 3x and 4x together at the same time?

[gambit57]

You can only have 1 lens on at a time. If you know you're going to be shooting at really far away objects, put the 70-300 on. Macro is for super up close. Like an inch away.

 

Realistically, unless you want to have a GIANT lens. Like cartoonish. 300 is about the max you can realistically expect. It's going to feel SHORT to you. You'll learn to work with what you've got. You can also crop (cut out a small portion of the picture you took on your computer) and blow that little bit up to what you have. The better your camera (sensor) and lens, the clearer it will be.

 

It's kind of a trade off. My mom can never wrap her head around a dslr because she wants that 300x zoom or whatever she has on her point and shoot. But her pictures are often blurry, the colors are weird, and if it gets just a teeny bit darker, the pictures come out all dark and weird. And she's ok with that.

 

With a dslr, you're going for quality.

[gambit57]

This photo was cut out of the original photo. It's probably 5-10% size of the original. Sure a 30x point and shoot could have gotten closer and filled out the frame, but there's no way it would have gotten the detail. More than likely, it wouldn't have been able to catch the dolphins in motion either. You can get a HIGH end point and shoot like the Sony RX100 V which shoots fast enough to catch the dolphins, but it's lens is nowhere near as long so the dolphins would look even farther away. This photo was shot with at 200mm on full frame, so about 133mm on your camera. Your 300 is roughly 400mm on my camera. You'll adjust. You'll also be able to shoot in much darker lighting. Try and get a cheap "prime" such as a 35mm (which comes out to a distance that's roughly the same as what your eye sees on your camera) with this description on the lens: f1.8. That means the opening to allow light in opens REALLY wide, so it can see in much darker places than a lens with a smaller opening. My camera can literally see in the dark. The D3000 can't go that far, but can get way better than a point and shoot.

 

[xlxo]

I just love my Nikon 18-200mm and 18-300mm lenses for travelling. While overkill in a dining room for food porn, I found them essential on a whale watch or on a moving bus. Just twist and I'm ready for the next Randall Higgins.

 

I was on a bus tour once, a woman next to me had an 18-55mm and that buffalo outside the bus was so tiny. My 18-300mm almost allowed me to see if it was a guy or girl.

[cruises42]

You can only have 1 lens on at a time. If you know you're going to be shooting at really far away objects, put the 70-300 on. Macro is for super up close. Like an inch away.

 

Realistically, unless you want to have a GIANT lens. Like cartoonish. 300 is about the max you can realistically expect. It's going to feel SHORT to you. You'll learn to work with what you've got. You can also crop (cut out a small portion of the picture you took on your computer) and blow that little bit up to what you have. The better your camera (sensor) and lens, the clearer it will be.

 

It's kind of a trade off. My mom can never wrap her head around a dslr because she wants that 300x zoom or whatever she has on her point and shoot. But her pictures are often blurry, the colors are weird, and if it gets just a teeny bit darker, the pictures come out all dark and weird. And she's ok with that.

 

With a dslr, you're going for quality.

 

This photo was cut out of the original photo. It's probably 5-10% size of the original. Sure a 30x point and shoot could have gotten closer and filled out the frame, but there's no way it would have gotten the detail. More than likely, it wouldn't have been able to catch the dolphins in motion either. You can get a HIGH end point and shoot like the Sony RX100 V which shoots fast enough to catch the dolphins, but it's lens is nowhere near as long so the dolphins would look even farther away. This photo was shot with at 200mm on full frame, so about 133mm on your camera. Your 300 is roughly 400mm on my camera. You'll adjust. You'll also be able to shoot in much darker lighting. Try and get a cheap "prime" such as a 35mm (which comes out to a distance that's roughly the same as what your eye sees on your camera) with this description on the lens: f1.8. That means the opening to allow light in opens REALLY wide, so it can see in much darker places than a lens with a smaller opening. My camera can literally see in the dark. The D3000 can't go that far, but can get way better than a point and shoot.

 

 

I have until 2/14 to decide if I want to keep it. I've been playing with it and I'm not quite sure I'll be happy with the 70-300mm zoom. Would I be able to get a 18-300mm? That would give me more zoom.

I also found that the

Vivitar 0.43x Professional Wide Angle Lens with Macro and the Xitphoto 22x High Definition AF Telephoto Lens can get put on my 18-55mm lens. Do they make such lenses to put on the 70-300mm lens?

What is a "prime"?

[cruises42]

You can only have 1 lens on at a time. If you know you're going to be shooting at really far away objects, put the 70-300 on. Macro is for super up close. Like an inch away.

 

Realistically, unless you want to have a GIANT lens. Like cartoonish. 300 is about the max you can realistically expect. It's going to feel SHORT to you. You'll learn to work with what you've got. You can also crop (cut out a small portion of the picture you took on your computer) and blow that little bit up to what you have. The better your camera (sensor) and lens, the clearer it will be.

 

It's kind of a trade off. My mom can never wrap her head around a dslr because she wants that 300x zoom or whatever she has on her point and shoot. But her pictures are often blurry, the colors are weird, and if it gets just a teeny bit darker, the pictures come out all dark and weird. And she's ok with that.

 

With a dslr, you're going for quality.

 

I really appreciate all your help! If you're interested here is a comparison between my 2 cameras. http://cameradecision.com/compare/Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-ZS60-vs-Nikon-D3400

[havoc315]

I have until 2/14 to decide if I want to keep it. I've been playing with it and I'm not quite sure I'll be happy with the 70-300mm zoom. Would I be able to get a 18-300mm? That would give me more zoom.

I also found that the

Vivitar 0.43x Professional Wide Angle Lens with Macro and the Xitphoto 22x High Definition AF Telephoto Lens can get put on my 18-55mm lens. Do they make such lenses to put on the 70-300mm lens?

What is a "prime"?

 

I think you’re misunderstanding the concept of zoom.

Yes, they make 18-300 lenses. Such a lens will give you the same focal lengths that you currently have — you currently have 18-55 and 70-300. If you got a 18-300, it would be the exact same thing but in 1 lens. So it would just mean changing lenses less often. (Also a generally inferior lens in terms of image quality)

 

A prime lens is a 1 focal length. It does not zoom in, it does not zoom out. There are telephoto primes, that can be used for wildlife, etc. There are normal and wide angle primes too. I took the following 2 pictures with very different prime lenses:

 

 

Prime lenses have superior image quality and far better low light abilities than zoom lenses, generally speaking.

 

In regard to macro lenses, you’re better off with a true dedicated macro lens than the clip on types.

 

This was taken with the Nikon 105mm macro.

[framer]

I think you’re misunderstanding the concept of zoom.

Yes, they make 18-300 lenses. Such a lens will give you the same focal lengths that you currently have — you currently have 18-55 and 70-300. If you got a 18-300, it would be the exact same thing but in 1 lens. So it would just mean changing lenses less often. (Also a generally inferior lens in terms of image quality)

 

A prime lens is a 1 focal length. It does not zoom in, it does not zoom out. There are telephoto primes, that can be used for wildlife, etc. There are normal and wide angle primes too. I took the following 2 pictures with very different prime lenses:

 

 

Prime lenses have superior image quality and far better low light abilities than zoom lenses, generally speaking.

 

In regard to macro lenses, you’re better off with a true dedicated macro lens than the clip on types.

 

This was taken with the Nikon 105mm macro.

 

 

How did you happen to have your camera with you when you voted and Bill & wife showed up. I thought most polling places don't allow cameras?

 

framer

[havoc315]

How did you happen to have your camera with you when you voted and Bill & wife showed up. I thought most polling places don't allow cameras?

 

framer

 

Just my phone.

Anyway... it’s my fault Clinton lost the election. I called to her, “Congratulations Madame President” and she walked over to me to thank me and shake my hand.

I’m officially the jinx.

[gambit57]

https://www.amazon.com/Nikon-18-300mm-3-5-5-6G-Vibration-Reduction/dp/B008B14VAK

 

Here's the 18-300. Like Havoc said, it's main advantage is that you don't have to change lenses. Or can just carry one lens. I had an 18-200 and I LOVED not having to change lenses for travel.

 

And I agree, the downside is the picture quality tends to not be as good. It's a tradeoff. You play with it and decide if the convenience is worth it, or do you want picture quality.

 

Quality comes with its own costs. Typically cost and weight/size. I now use a full frame with "pro" lenses. But it's HEAVY. Fairly bulky too. The problem is, I'm addicted to the quality so I can't bring myself to move to a smaller camera like mirrorless. Anything similar in quality is fairly big too. A full frame mirrorless is nearly as bulky, only a little lighter, and costs more.

 

Those attachments are the weirdest things. That said, they're cheap. I guess it's worth a shot. The one thing I am pretty sure of is they'll probably work ok in really bright conditions. It's indoors or bad lighting where things might get bad enough you won't want them.

 

Prime lenses don't zoom. They're just fixed at one distance (called focal length or the mm you see). The reason people love them is because they don't need to zoom, they can be optimized more. The picture quality is generally a lot better (clearer, more detailed, etc). Also, they generally allow in a lot more light so can be used in much darker areas and still get clear, non-blurry photos.

 

Zoom or distance is the mm you see, such as 18-55mm. With DSLRs, people don't talk in 10x or 20x zoom anymore because that means different things on different cameras. When you go by mm, it's standard on all DSLRs no matter the model or manufacturer. The only difference is full frame or crop. Crop is 1.5x (roughly, sometimes it's 1.6 on some manufacturers I think but people just use 1.5 to make the math easier) of what full frame is. So if I say I took a photo at 200mm or recommend a 70-200mm lens and I'm talking about a full frame camera (whether it's Nikon, Canon, Sony, whatever), on a crop (I think the general term is APS-C, or DX for your Nikon) you just multiply it by 1.5 so it would be 300mm or 105-300mm on your crop camera.

 

At the extreme ends of the scale (ie very wide such as 12mm or a lot of zoom such as 200+mm), you notice the difference a lot more. You'll notice a much bigger difference going from 12mm to 18mm than you will from 18mm to 24mm. Or much more difference going from 300 to 400 than 100 to 200.

[gambit57]

I never thought those wide zoom ranges had bad enough quality to recommend against. Not for the Nikon lenses anyways.

 

The main problem with them is that they don't let a lot of light in. Well, your 18-55 kit lens isn't going to be better, but if you compare a lens that costs the same but has a shorter zoom range, that shorter zoom range lens should let more light in. You'll see that in the spec listed as the f stop. Such as f3.5 - 6.6 or something like that. The smaller the number, the better. All lenses can have that f number go bigger. However, they only go smaller up to a certain point. The lower that number, the better. The primes typically have max f stops in the f1.4 or f1.8 range. If you're indoors, trying to take pictures in a restaurant or a family party or something, you'll notice a HUGE difference with a lens that can open up to f1.8 vs one that's limited to f4 or f6.

 

The f range also increases the blurriness of the background. The lower the number, the blurrier the background. It's great for portraits. Awful for your giant scenery shot. Smartphones are making a big deal about having dual lenses because the dual lenses allow them to create a blurry background now. That's more of an advanced level of detail though. A lot of people never notice how blurry a background is. Just that one picture "looks" a little better or more "professional" than another.

 

For beginners, what a lower f number means is that your picture will show up a lot brighter in dim lighting (dim for the camera, you'll be able to see just fine with the naked eye because your pupils can dilate, which is essentially what the lens is doing with the f number). The brighter the camera sensor sees things, the sharper the image will be.

 

If you're still on full auto, the camera compensates to try and take the best picture it can. If it's dark, and your lens can't let enough light in, the camera compensates by slowing down the shutter speed and keeps it open longer to let in more light. That allows more time to shake and make the picture blurry. And/or, it ups the ISO, and the higher the ISO used, the grainier the picture gets which can also make a picture look blurry.

 

That Understanding Exposure everyone talks about does a much better job explaining it all than I can.

 

But that's why, as you do more research, you'll here everyone say that the lenses matter more than the camera body. Spend your money on better glass (the lenses) than the bodies. You can reuse lenses (generally) across camera bodies. So, it can make more sense to spend more on a "good" lens than to upgrade to a higher camera body. Such as spending $1000 to get a good lens than to upgrade from a D3400 to a D5400.

 

For beginners, most advice is to spend a little on a nice prime lens (no zoom). Something like a 35mm f1.8 or 50mm f1.8. They're very inexpensive. Like $100 used I think. However, the pictures you get out of them make your jaw drop when you compare to the same thing from your 18-55 kit lens. You "zoom with your feet" or just walk closer if you need to zoom. Or just crop what you want out later if you physically can't get closer.

[havoc315]

I never thought those wide zoom ranges had bad enough quality to recommend against. Not for the Nikon lenses anyways.

 

IMO, times have changed --- Those wide zoom ranges, those 18-300 super zoom lenses, compromise quite a bit in IQ and in aperture (and because of smaller aperture, you need to use higher ISO, further degrading the IQ).

 

Now, take a time machine to 2008ish..... Sticking a lens like the 18-300 on a dSLR still gave you better pictures than you were going to get with any other camera.

 

Fast forward to 2018 -- The iPhone 8 or iPhone X will probably give you better images than an aps-c dSLR with 18-300 lens, but without the zoom range.

The Nikon 18-300 is $700. A Nikon D3400 is $400 -- So $1100 for both. About the same price as the Sony RX10ii, which has a constant 2.8 aperture. And for only slightly more money, you can get the RX10iii which has far more range (24mm to 600mm), and a fast 2.4-4 lens. For just $899, you can get the Canon G3x which also has a 24-600 range. Aperture is slower than the Sony, but still fast at wide angle. There are also competing models from Panasonic.

 

In other words, take your time machine -- the 18-300 was a respectable way to balance convenience with quality on a dSLR. Fast forward to the present, there are other superior options available, that are even more convenient and offer better quality.

 

In my snobbish opinionated way... I commented to someone recently, that putting a superzoom lens on the Sony A7riii would be like taking a $3000 bottle of 1982 Lafite Rothschild and then mixing it with club soda to make sangria.

If it's sangria that the photographer wants, there are now better ways than sticking a super zoom lens on a dSLR.

[gambit57]

That's certainly possible. I haven't played with the newest stuff. We have an iPhone X and it is amazing. Frankly, I was pretty amazed at the iPhone 7. That one was the first iPhone that I thought was a serious threat to even DSLRs for many situations, let alone the cheapy point and shoots.

 

That said, I still think zoom range is important for most people and smartphones just aren't there yet.

 

I'm not ready to shut the door on dslrs though. While the Sony RX10 iii is very compelling, especially for its zoom, it still can't change lenses. That ability still affords a flexibility that is still relevant IMO.

[havoc315]

That's certainly possible. I haven't played with the newest stuff. We have an iPhone X and it is amazing. Frankly, I was pretty amazed at the iPhone 7. That one was the first iPhone that I thought was a serious threat to even DSLRs for many situations, let alone the cheapy point and shoots.

 

That said, I still think zoom range is important for most people and smartphones just aren't there yet.

 

I'm not ready to shut the door on dslrs though. While the Sony RX10 iii is very compelling, especially for its zoom, it still can't change lenses. That ability still affords a flexibility that is still relevant IMO.

 

That's exactly my point -- I'm not shutting the door on dSLRs for people who want the best and are willing to accept the inconveniences that go with the best -- ie, changing lenses.

 

But for people who don't want to change lenses, there is no point to dSLRs anymore. Go back a few years, it was common to have people buy a dSLR, put 1 lens on it, and never ever change the lens. There are still people like that --- but I don't think there is any reason for such a person to own a dSLR anymore..

 

If they are just going with an 18-55..... The iphone 8+ or iphone X is a pretty darn good replacement. A camera like the RX100 would be an update.

If they are going with something like the 18-300... then the RX10 models would an upgrade.

 

I shoot full frame... I have expensive lenses. For people like me, an ILC/DSLR certainly makes sense. And it can make sense without having a $5000 budget, but only if you're fairly serious about learning the craft and at least willing to spring for a nifty fifty.

[griffster]

hi

thought i would add a few pics from our caribbean cruise in dec 2017. my camera is a SONY CYBERSHOT H400, can not download pics. its saying i have no security token!!!!! could someone please tell me what that means. thankyou.