Just bought my first non-entry level dSLR. Thoughts?

[MrD1sturbed]

So yesterday the DW and I went to Showcase Photo here in ATL, and after about 2 hours going over different gear they had, I walked away with a brand new Nikon D7100 (body only) with a Tamron 18-270mm Di II VC PZD and SB700. This isn't my first dSLR, but certainly my first that wasn't an entry level type. I did not have a previous investment in glass, so I was able to buy into a new system without much headache (my previous dSLR was a Canon T4i with 24-105 kit lens, which I promptly returned to BB after a couple days). Now to go play with this thing and start learning it's secrets.

Anyone else pick up a D7100? Any thoughts on the Tamron vs the kit lens that comes with the D7100? Any thoughts on resources for a newbie to read?

 

[havoc315]

Everyone will recommend "Understanding Exposure"

That's a versatile lens given its huge focal range. I've read good things about the lens, though it is a step down from the kit lens in many ways. But it does give you the versatile range and ultra silent motor, both of which are nice.

 

[wbeem]

First, that's a very nice camera body you've picked up. It should last you a long time and give you the tools you need to make some great photos.

The Tamron lens has a lot of flexibility because it's a superzoom. On the other hand, superzoom lenses also have a lot of distortion at almost any focal length. You're also going to have a variable aperture, so it won't be the best low light lens for handheld shots. If you're on a tripod and your subject isn't moving, it will give you a lot of opportunities.

What do you have for post processing software? You may want something to correct for the distortion in that lens.

 

[MrD1sturbed]

Everyone will recommend "Understanding Exposure"

That's a versatile lens given its huge focal range. I've read good things about the lens, though it is a step down from the kit lens in many ways. But it does give you the versatile range and ultra silent motor, both of which are nice.

I will definitely have to check that book out, thanks!

As for the lens, yea I figured it was a step down from the kit lens in some aspects, but I really wanted a good all-in-one lens, something that I didn't have worry about switching around all the time while out and about in WDW. The guy at the shop recommended that lens more for it's versatility. Once I'm comfortable with the basics and feel that I am getting decent pictures with this lens, I can consider moving onto some higher rated glass.

 

[MrD1sturbed]

First, that's a very nice camera body you've picked up. It should last you a long time and give you the tools you need to make some great photos.

The Tamron lens has a lot of flexibility because it's a superzoom. On the other hand, superzoom lenses also have a lot of distortion at almost any focal length. You're also going to have a variable aperture, so it won't be the best low light lens for handheld shots. If you're on a tripod and your subject isn't moving, it will give you a lot of opportunities.

What do you have for post processing software? You may want something to correct for the distortion in that lens.

I was reading about that on dpreview. For post processing I will be using Lightroom & possibly Photoshop (CS6). I have a sub to creative cloud.

Is there a better lens that I should get than the Tamron? Should I just suck it up and deal with switching lens's when the need arises? I plan to get a nice lightweight tripod, but I would prefer to be able to get most shots handheld. The tripod would be more for parades & fireworks.

 

[mrcymbalplayer]

Definitely consider investing in a good tripod (if you haven't already) if you are looking to get fireworks photos at Disney. Shooting handheld will be very difficult.

 

[MrD1sturbed]

Definitely consider investing in a good tripod (if you haven't already) if you are looking to get fireworks photos at Disney. Shooting handheld will be very difficult.

Any thoughts a good lightweight travel tripod, that doesn't cost $500 (no Gitzo's please, lol)

 

[2Tiggies]

Everyone will recommend "Understanding Exposure"

Yep! It really helped me understand the exposure triangle. I had all the theory before but this is a great (and beautiful) book. Do yourself a favor if you go with this one: grab your camera, take the book and read it with your camera in hand. I spend a long weekend with my camera and the book and by the end of it a lot of fog had lifted for me, let's just say that

 

[Shutterbug]

If you havent done this, I would recommend getting your camera manual and reading over it completely.
I remember getting my Canon 7D. There are so many settings! Ways to set up how it focuses in this mode, what it does in that mode. Setting up that button to do that, this button do that. I even watched videos to help me understand all it could do.

Your camera has alot of features that you paid aiot of money for. These features will help you to take the kind of photos you want.

I know I have to get my manual out every so often or watch those videos on to refresh my brain.

 

[jimim]

Congrats on ur new toys. I third or fourth the recommended book. Play, shoot, and post. I feel it's one of the best ways to learn. I like others to view my work soI can learn from them and ways to improve.

What made u switch camps from Canon to Nikon? Just wondering.

jimi

 

[wbeem]

I was reading about that on dpreview. For post processing I will be using Lightroom & possibly Photoshop (CS6). I have a sub to creative cloud.

Is there a better lens that I should get than the Tamron? Should I just suck it up and deal with switching lens's when the need arises? I plan to get a nice lightweight tripod, but I would prefer to be able to get most shots handheld. The tripod would be more for parades & fireworks.

Cool. Lightroom or Photoshop both have lens correction, which is a great start. If that doesn't do it, you can also use the wide angle correction filter in Photoshop.

As for the Tamron, I don't know anything about it and can't tell you if it's a keeper or not. However, all superzoom lenses have a lot of distortion. It's a trade-off for convenience.

That distortion does not mean that you can't take beautiful photos. I'll use Trey Ratcliff again as an example. He tends to like the collapsing lines in his photos. If you read his Nikon 28-300mm lens review, he also mentions that he prefers the convenience of that lens to carrying and switching.

Jay Maisel is another fan of that Nikon superzoom lens. Both of these guys are getting great shots, so don't think that you have to suck it up. It comes down to your style and how you want to shoot.

 

[Daisy14'sDH]

I use the Alta Vista Pro tripod, not light, not small. But does everything like sized units do for half the price

 

[wbeem]

Any thoughts a good lightweight travel tripod, that doesn't cost $500 (no Gitzo's please, lol)

Check out a brand called Oben. They have some carbon fiber tripods that aren't too expensive.

That said, there's a classic argument for buying a great tripod right off the bat because you're going to eventually buy it. Why waste money on the cheap stuff?

http://bythom.com/support.htm

 

[mom2rtk]

I'm curious what it is about this camera/lens combo that you hope to do that the Canon T4i and lens could not do?

I guess I find it perplexing that you were discerning enough to return the T4i, but then settled on a superzoom for your first lens.

A superzoom can certainly have its place in a kit. But if you want to do a lot of handheld shots, you're going to find yourself wanting something different. I have the Tamron in my kit, but honestly, it's one of my least used lenses. I tend to use it when I'm going to be somewhere I don't want to be changing lenses (think outdoors on a windy day or any day at the beach).

There's a reason people carry around a lot of gear. Despite the fact that my doctor says I need more weight bearing exercise.

 

[MrD1sturbed]

Congrats on ur new toys. I third or fourth the recommended book. Play, shoot, and post. I feel it's one of the best ways to learn. I like others to view my work soI can learn from them and ways to improve.

What made u switch camps from Canon to Nikon? Just wondering.

jimi

Honestly the feel of the camera in my hands. The T4i was too small, almost felt like a toy. The only Canon's I liked that felt right were the 60D, 7D & 6D, of which only the later was considered to be up to date tech wise. There are already rumors of a 70D replacing the 60D, and the 7D was practically replaced by the 6D. That and the fact that the 6D was about $1k more.

I'm curious what it is about this camera/lens combo that you hope to do that the Canon T4i and lens could not do?

I guess I find it perplexing that you were discerning enough to return the T4i, but then settled on a superzoom for your first lens.

A superzoom can certainly have its place in a kit. But if you want to do a lot of handheld shots, you're going to find yourself wanting something different. I have the Tamron in my kit, but honestly, it's one of my least used lenses. I tend to use it when I'm going to be somewhere I don't want to be changing lenses (think outdoors on a windy day or any day at the beach).

There's a reason people carry around a lot of gear. Despite the fact that my doctor says I need more weight bearing exercise.

Don't get me wrong, the T4i seemed like a great camera. But it just felt to small in my hands. I still have time to return the lens and get something better suited to my shooting needs, and as I said if I have switch lenses so be it, but I need some recommendations on good lenses to buy, that won't break the bank considering I'm a newbie.

 

[havoc315]

Honestly the feel of the camera in my hands. The T4i was too small, almost felt like a toy. The only Canon's I liked that felt right were the 60D, 7D & 6D, of which only the later was considered to be up to date tech wise. There are already rumors of a 70D replacing the 60D, and the 7D was practically replaced by the 6D. That and the fact that the 6D was about $1k more.



Don't get me wrong, the T4i seemed like a great camera. But it just felt to small in my hands. I still have time to return the lens and get something better suited to my shooting needs, and as I said if I have switch lenses so be it, but I need some recommendations on good lenses to buy, that won't break the bank considering I'm a newbie.

I shoot Sony and primarily use legacy Minolta glass, but my "newer" lenses are Tamron. I do find that some Tamron lenses really deliver at fairly reasonable price.
You paid about $600+ for the 18-270?
Personally, I'd start a personal kit with 2 lenses. If you're willing to buy used-mint quality, you can probably get these 2 lenses for about $600 combined. New, they will be about $900.
The Tamron 17-50/2.8. For indoor, low light, and wide angle-- it will deliver better quality than the kit lens. The only thing it lacks is an ultra quiet motor.

Then for telephoto-- the Tamron 70-300 usd. Huge reach. It has the ultra quiet motor. And I have been exceptionally impressed with image quality. It's a variable aperture so it's still not a low light lens. But I suspect it will outperform the 18-270. I've been extremely happy with its sharpness and colors.

Those 2 lenses would cover most of the needs of a novice, with the potential for very high quality. (Assuming you can survive without having the 50-70 range covered).

 

[MrD1sturbed]

I shoot Sony and primarily use legacy Minolta glass, but my "newer" lenses are Tamron. I do find that some Tamron lenses really deliver at fairly reasonable price.
You paid about $600+ for the 18-270?
Personally, I'd start a personal kit with 2 lenses. If you're willing to buy used-mint quality, you can probably get these 2 lenses for about $600 combined. New, they will be about $900.
The Tamron 17-50/2.8. For indoor, low light, and wide angle-- it will deliver better quality than the kit lens. The only thing it lacks is an ultra quiet motor.

Then for telephoto-- the Tamron 70-300 usd. Huge reach. It has the ultra quiet motor. And I have been exceptionally impressed with image quality. It's a variable aperture so it's still not a low light lens. But I suspect it will outperform the 18-270. I've been extremely happy with its sharpness and colors.

Those 2 lenses would cover most of the needs of a novice, with the potential for very high quality. (Assuming you can survive without having the 50-70 range covered).

Actually they lowered the price on the 18-270, it's now about $450. I don't mind the investment in good glass, but I don't have an extra $1k to invest at this point in time. I'll see what my guy at Showcase can get those lenses for. Thanks for the recommendation.

 

[jimim]

Honestly the feel of the camera in my hands. The T4i was too small, almost felt like a toy. The only Canon's I liked that felt right were the 60D, 7D & 6D, of which only the later was considered to be up to date tech wise. There are already rumors of a 70D replacing the 60D, and the 7D was practically replaced by the 6D. That and the fact that the 6D was about $1k more.

Don't get me wrong, the T4i seemed like a great camera. But it just felt to small in my hands. I still have time to return the lens and get something better suited to my shooting needs, and as I said if I have switch lenses so be it, but I need some recommendations on good lenses to buy, that won't break the bank considering I'm a newbie.

Woo the 7d is deff not replaced by the 7d. Without going back to look at the 6d the biggest thing is the focus point system. It is 11 pt vs the 19 on the 7d which also has more sensitive points outside the center focus point like the 6d I ly has. This alone puts it above the 7d I feel. The frames per second for bursts is also much higher. The 6d is not a replacement for the 7d. Yes the 6 is full frame but that's about it in my eyes. I also have rebel and yes it's small but mine feels very solid in my hands too?

Sent from my iPhone using DISBoards

 

[HPS3]

I hope the D7100 doesn't have the quality control issues like the D600. I would skip the superzoom and go with a 17-50 f2.8 from Sigma or Tamron just because of the constant f2.8. I hate zooming and losing stops of light. Thats just me.

How is the D7100 @ iso 3200. I didnt like the higher 24 megapixels in the Nex 7 compared to the 16 megapixels. It was a lot worse at high iso.

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

How is the D7100 @ iso 3200. I didnt like the higher 24 megapixels in the Nex 7 compared to the 16 megapixels. It was a lot worse at high iso.

Scott Thomas (Scottwdw) recently bought one and since I had lowlight questions on the 24mp APS-C sensor, he directed me to Scott Kelby's review.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIvK7ixsiEY