Ready to buy 1st DSLR -- UPDATE in 1st post - I did it!!!

[bamagirl@hrt]

I'm ready to take the plunge! I've started reading "Understanding Exposure" as recommended on this board. I've come to the realization that Canon P&S just doesn't have the manual options needed to get the kind of quality I want for indoor and lower light pictures. I've read many threads here, and now I have a couple of questions.

I've decided on a Nikon. I like the feel of them. I like that they are lightweight. I really want to stay under $1000 for this purchase, so I'm looking at the D40 and D60. Other than the number of megapixels, what can the D60 do that the D40 can't?

And my main question is about lenses. I'm looking on the Ritz website and some different 2 lens packages. They are as follows:

1) Nikon D40 with 18-55mm f3.5-5/6G and AFS DX 55-200mm F/4-5.6G ED Price $600

2) Nikon D40 with same 18-55mm lens and AFS DX VR 55-200mm F4-5.6G Price $650

3) Nikon D60 with 18-55mm VR and AFS DX 55-200mm F/4-5.6G ED I didn't write down price, but I think it was about $700

or
4) Nikon D60 with 18-55mm VR and AFS DX VR 55-200mm F4-5.6G Price $750

From what I've read, the VR is for Vibration Reduction, isn't it? That means image stability, right? So it seems better to have that, right?

At this point, I really don't want a dozen different lenses. I want a good, basic, everyday shooting lens and a lens with more zoom. I want to be able to take pictures of my daughter's orchestra concert or my son's baseball game and have them close enough to tell who they are. I'm not looking to zoom in on the sweat on a football player from the nosebleeds of a major stadium. I also love great pics from Disney World. I want to capture those quick moments with a character or maybe get a decent Wishes or Spectro shot. I doubt I'll ever carry a big tripod to Disney, so getting those shots may always be a problem for me. So do these packages sound like good lenses for me? Or should I look at something else?

You all have such wonderful knowledge of photography. I appreciate your help and advice!

Christy



***UPDATE***

I did it! I took Anne's (and others') advice. I purchased the Nikon D40 with the kit lens and the 55-200mm VR lens. I also ordered the Nikkor 35mm f1.8 lens. I added a couple of 4GB cards for a total of a few pennies under $900. I ordered from Ritz, so free shipping and no sales tax! It should be here within a week. I decided to buy a bag AFTER I get it and use it and see what I will want to lug around on a regular basis.

Thanks again for all of your help!

 

[annnewjerz]

I'm ready to take the plunge! I've started reading "Understanding Exposure" as recommended on this board. I've come to the realization that Canon P&S just doesn't have the manual options needed to get the kind of quality I want for indoor and lower light pictures. I've read many threads here, and now I have a couple of questions.

I've decided on a Nikon. I like the feel of them. I like that they are lightweight. I really want to stay under $1000 for this purchase, so I'm looking at the D40 and D60. Other than the number of megapixels, what can the D60 do that the D40 can't?

And my main question is about lenses. I'm looking on the Ritz website and some different 2 lens packages. They are as follows:

1) Nikon D40 with 18-55mm f3.5-5/6G and AFS DX 55-200mm F/4-5.6G ED Price $600

2) Nikon D40 with same 18-55mm lens and AFS DX VR 55-200mm F4-5.6G Price $650

3) Nikon D60 with 18-55mm VR and AFS DX 55-200mm F/4-5.6G ED I didn't write down price, but I think it was about $700

or
4) Nikon D60 with 18-55mm VR and AFS DX VR 55-200mm F4-5.6G Price $750

From what I've read, the VR is for Vibration Reduction, isn't it? That means image stability, right? So it seems better to have that, right?

At this point, I really don't want a dozen different lenses. I want a good, basic, everyday shooting lens and a lens with more zoom. I want to be able to take pictures of my daughter's orchestra concert or my son's baseball game and have them close enough to tell who they are. I'm not looking to zoom in on the sweat on a football player from the nosebleeds of a major stadium. I also love great pics from Disney World. I want to capture those quick moments with a character or maybe get a decent Wishes or Spectro shot. I doubt I'll ever carry a big tripod to Disney, so getting those shots may always be a problem for me. So do these packages sound like good lenses for me? Or should I look at something else?

You all have such wonderful knowledge of photography. I appreciate your help and advice!

Christy

If you are sold on Nikon, I would go with Option 2, but also add in Nikon's 35mm f/1.8 lens for about $200. This will give you a good walk-around lens (the 18-55), a decent telephoto lens with the VR built in which is important at the longer focal lengths (55-200mm VR) and a lens that will be good in low-light and produce a nice shallow depth of field when you want it (the 35mm f/1.8). IMO, I think that's a pretty near perfect starter kit. Add on an abundance of memory cards and a bag for all of your new gear, as well as a rocket blower and a lens pen and you've got yourself about $1000 worth of stuff. See how easy it is for all of us around here to spend your money? '

I had the D60 before upgrading to the D90 and while it was a good camera, if I had to go back I probably would have just gotten the D40 instead. The D60 has higher megapixels, does a little better at higher ISOs and also has a built in system to shake the dust from the sensor---but other than that, there isn't too much difference.

With the D40 you will still be able to easily get 8x10 prints and I think John (YesDear) demonstrated that he could get a print size of something like 12x20 or larger with an older Nikon digital SLR.

I would recommend looking at this package on B&H or Adorama's website. They both have the same kit for $650 (or less) and they offer free shipping and great customer service, in my experience.

Good luck and happy shopping!

 

[RBennett]

Read THIS. It's a side-by-side comparison of the D40, the D60, and I threw in the D40x for good measure. Hopefully that might let you see the difference between the 3!

 

[Steve's Girl]

For low light photos you will need faster lenses other than what you have listed. Ann's suggestion is very good. Get the kit that allows you enough room in your budget to add a prime (ie, 35 1.8 lens) or a 3rd party 2.8 lens. Both Sigma and Tamron make some that will still keep you within your budget.

 

[bamagirl@hrt]

If you are sold on Nikon, I would go with Option 2, but also add in Nikon's 35mm f/1.8 lens for about $200. This will give you a good walk-around lens (the 18-55), a decent telephoto lens with the VR built in which is important at the longer focal lengths (55-200mm VR) and a lens that will be good in low-light and produce a nice shallow depth of field when you want it (the 35mm f/1.8). IMO, I think that's a pretty near perfect starter kit. Add on an abundance of memory cards and a bag for all of your new gear, as well as a rocket blower and a lens pen and you've got yourself about $1000 worth of stuff. See how easy it is for all of us around here to spend your money? '

I had the D60 before upgrading to the D90 and while it was a good camera, if I had to go back I probably would have just gotten the D40 instead. The D60 has higher megapixels, does a little better at higher ISOs and also has a built in system to shake the dust from the sensor---but other than that, there isn't too much difference.

With the D40 you will still be able to easily get 8x10 prints and I think John (YesDear) demonstrated that he could get a print size of something like 12x20 or larger with an older Nikon digital SLR.

I would recommend looking at this package on B&H or Adorama's website. They both have the same kit for $650 (or less) and they offer free shipping and great customer service, in my experience.

Good luck and happy shopping!

Thank you so much! This is exactly the kind of input that I need!

 

[bamagirl@hrt]

If I add the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 lens, is it only good for shots of fireworks, Christmas lights, and such? Or will it also be good for shots of people in low light conditions? Like walking around World Showcase at night? Or indoors when flash is not allowed? I'm just to understand the realm of its capabilities before sinking an additional $200 down.

Thanks!

 

[VVFF]

If I add the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 lens, is it only good for shots of fireworks, Christmas lights, and such? Or will it also be good for shots of people in low light conditions? Like walking around World Showcase at night? Or indoors when flash is not allowed? I'm just to understand the realm of its capabilities before sinking an additional $200 down.

Thanks!

I'm not entirely sure where you got the impression that it would only be good for fireworks or christmas lights. The F1.8 was suggested for low light ability and that applies to any subject in low light(unless high DOF is needed). Actually fireworks typically use a smaller aperture size to maximize the time the lens is open for to get the nice firework "trails".

35mm x 1.5 conversion factor - 52.5mm which is as close to a "standard" focal length lens as you can get on a crop frame nikon.

 

[annnewjerz]

If I add the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 lens, is it only good for shots of fireworks, Christmas lights, and such? Or will it also be good for shots of people in low light conditions? Like walking around World Showcase at night? Or indoors when flash is not allowed? I'm just to understand the realm of its capabilities before sinking an additional $200 down.

Thanks!

For things like fireworks, you will need a tripod---the lens doesn't really have too much to do with it (but that's a whole different topic).

This lens will be good for handheld low light shooting (like shooting indoors without a flash or lower light rides in Disney like Splash Mountain, Small World, Pirates, etc.). But more importantly, IMO, having a prime lens with a 1.8 aperture is nice for everyday use when you want a shallow depth of field (blurry background with the focus of the picture sharp).

Here are some examples that I have taken with my prime lenses (not the 35mm f/1.8 but both f/1.8 and f/1.4):

 

[bamagirl@hrt]

I'm not entirely sure where you got the impression that it would only be good for fireworks or christmas lights. The F1.8 was suggested for low light ability and that applies to any subject in low light(unless high DOF is needed). Actually fireworks typically use a smaller aperture size to maximize the time the lens is open for to get the nice firework "trails".

35mm x 1.5 conversion factor - 52.5mm which is as close to a "standard" focal length lens as you can get on a crop frame nikon.

I had originally said that I'd like to get decent Wishes or Spectro pictures, so I guess that my impression came from that. I realize that I have a lot to learn. I really am an intelligent person - I have a degree in engineering! But my brains seem to turn to mush when I start trying to understand photography. I am hoping that with a camera in hand, some good books, and all of you experienced, helpful people here, I WILL master this! I don't want to become a professional; I just want good family photos.

 

[bamagirl@hrt]

For things like fireworks, you will need a tripod---the lens doesn't really have too much to do with it (but that's a whole different topic).

This lens will be good for handheld low light shooting (like shooting indoors without a flash or lower light rides in Disney like Splash Mountain, Small World, Pirates, etc.). But more importantly, IMO, having a prime lens with a 1.8 aperture is nice for everyday use when you want a shallow depth of field (blurry background with the focus of the picture sharp).

Here are some examples that I have taken with my prime lenses (not the 35mm f/1.8 but both f/1.8 and f/1.4):

Beautiful pictures! Thanks for the pictures to illustrate what you're talking about!

 

[VVFF]

I had originally said that I'd like to get decent Wishes or Spectro pictures, so I guess that my impression came from that. I realize that I have a lot to learn. I really am an intelligent person - I have a degree in engineering! But my brains seem to turn to mush when I start trying to understand photography. I am hoping that with a camera in hand, some good books, and all of you experienced, helpful people here, I WILL master this! I don't want to become a professional; I just want good family photos.

Large aperture lenses are great for spectro but as someone else said, for fireworks you still need a tripod to get the "ideal" firework pictures. A railing can sometimes suffice though.

 

[bamagirl@hrt]

Large aperture lenses are great for spectro but as someone else said, for fireworks you still need a tripod to get the "ideal" firework pictures. A railing can sometimes suffice though.

So not all dark shots are created equally. Got it. But, if a railing would suffice for fireworks, what lens would you use? Of the options I'm looking at, would you use one with the f5.6 for a smaller aperture?

This summer we went to Washington, DC. In the Smithsonian museums, my pictures were less than impressive. In the dinosaur exhibit, my pics were dark and had "orbs." I had a lot of flash reflections from the glass cases. Would this be another instance when the 35mm f1.8 lens would be the good choice?

I really appreciate your and Ann's patience in answering my questions.

 

[Steve's Girl]

There are different types of low light photos. Those that require a faster shutter speed due to moving object (ie, Spectro) and photos of stationary objects that you will want to use a longer shutter speed (fireworks, landscape type shots, etc.). The smaller the f number (aperature) of a lens the more light the lens lets in and the faster the shutter speed can be. The higher the f number, the less light the lens lets in and a slower shutter speed would be needed to get a properly exposed photo. So, for Spectro, you will want to use a shutter speed that is fast enough so the floats and characters don't blur as they move. To do this, you need a fast lens (low f number) to let in A LOT of light. For fireworks or photos of the castle after dark and other non-moving subject, you will use a higher f number (f8 or so) and keep the shutter open for a longer time (often several seconds). This requires a tripod.

This is a 20 second photo with a tripod

This is a handheld shot at 1/90 of a second using a fast f1.4 lens

 

[Steve's Girl]

So not all dark shots are created equally. Got it. But, if a railing would suffice for fireworks, what lens would you use? Of the options I'm looking at, would you use one with the f5.6 for a smaller aperture?

This summer we went to Washington, DC. In the Smithsonian museums, my pictures were less than impressive. In the dinosaur exhibit, my pics were dark and had "orbs." I had a lot of flash reflections from the glass cases. Would this be another instance when the 35mm f1.8 lens would be the good choice?

I really appreciate your and Ann's patience in answering my questions.

Any of the lenses will work fine for fireworks. Fireworks are really pretty easy as long as you have a stable base for the camera. A remote shutter release also helps to eliminate camera shake from pushing the shutter.

Prime lenses such as the 35 1.8 are great for museums. They let in a lot of light and work well for indoor venues.

 

[handicap18]

With the D40 you will still be able to easily get 8x10 prints and I think John (YesDear) demonstrated that he could get a print size of something like 12x20 or larger with an older Nikon digital SLR.

I have an 11x14 enlargement on my wall that is cropped by about 30% and looks great. I took it with my 6.1MP Nikon D50 which has the same sensor as the D40.

I also have 2 12x18's that are also sharp as tacks. I could have gone up to 20x30 and still have it look great. Again taken with my 6.1MP Nikon D50.

 

[Icemann]

Check out dpreview.com you can do a side by side on the Nikons or any other cameras.I'm a newbie to this to and the people on the boards here are great they will help and answer your questions.I just bought a D40 kit and I love it bought it at Ritz on-line and bought a few things in their store have to look hard for the stores now.Try shooting at an slight angle to the glass helps with bounce back flash I had the same problem at the Smith as you.

Good Luck

 

[handicap18]

For fireworks I typically use my standard zoom (either my 18-70mm or 18-135mm). Same for general night shots around the parks with a tripod.

Back "in the day" before zooms were made well or pretty much made at all, people used "prime lenses". The most popular which was also the standard "kit" lens was the 50mm. Most dSLR's have a sensor that is smaller than a frame of film. Because of this the field of view is cropped compared to those old film camera's. So the Nikon 35mm lens is pretty much a "standard" lens when used with the current (most) dSLR's. It pretty much will give you the field of view that your own human eye has.

Additionally this particular lens has a wide aperture (kind of like the pupil of your eye) and is a great tool to use for night shots or low light shots. You have the option of using this lens at a much wider f/stop than standard "kit" zoom lenses. Just because the lens can go as wide as f/1.8 doesn't mean it has to. In other words you can use it in the back yard for candids of the family, or indoors for a family party with a flash just as much as you can for those low light (no flash) mood setting shots or for a night time parade where you wouldn't want to use a flash that would wash out all the great colors.

As far as lenses go, it is relatively inexpensive for what it can do. It is a great tool to have in your bag.

 

[YesDear]

I would go with Ann's suggestion. We have trained her well!


She is right. I have a 24X36 inch print on my wall that was taken with a D70 that was also a 6mp camera.

If you are an engineer, camera math will be easy to learn. Just think 1/2 and double.

Welcome to the world of digital and photography. Just remember the number one rule! Cameras need to be used! Second rule: auto setting is not your creatvie friend.

 

[annnewjerz]

This summer we went to Washington, DC. In the Smithsonian museums, my pictures were less than impressive. In the dinosaur exhibit, my pics were dark and had "orbs." I had a lot of flash reflections from the glass cases. Would this be another instance when the 35mm f1.8 lens would be the good choice?

Yup---the 35mm f/1.8 would be a great lens to use in DC. I know this, because I went in April for the first time and had a lot of success using a similar fast prime lens. They aren't the best pictures because it was wall to wall people in the museums, but not too much glare from the glass and no flash needed.

I would go with Ann's suggestion. We have trained her well!

I'm like a drone. I just walk around all day to everyone I encounter reciting everything I have heard/read/seen about kit lenses, camera bodies, external flashes and tripods. Have you ever seen those commercials where the people are like walking wikipedias? Sometimes, I feel like that.