Which DSLR? or get a Sony RX100?

[Gianna'sPapa]

Yay, I think I have come to a decision!

I am going to get the Nikon D5100. I did a lot of research on the mirrorless systems and was very torn about which way to go. When actually holding the cameras in store the nikons just felt better. Strange I know, I thought I would really like the smaller ones but they just felt very awkward to me.

I also took into account the ability to learn photography from my sister in law. She takes amazing pictures and is very excited about helping me learn. For me, I think this will be a major advantage.

I also plan on keeping the point and shoot camera I currently have as I know there will be times when I just want something small. I have gotten a lot of good pictures from that camera, just overall feel limited by what it can do. It does however take much better pictures than my smart phone, at least for me, and I just really hate taking pictures with my phone.

So, my next question is do I get the camera kit, or do I get just the body and replace the kit lenses with a better lens right from the start? I do plan on getting a 55-200 lens to use for sports, but won't need that until the spring!

Thanks again for all the help!

If your intent is to use the 55-200 for sports, then you may want to give that some extra thought. All zoom lenses are not created equal. While the sensor in the 5100 has a very good reputation for ISO/noise range, the 55-200 is a relatively slow lens. Indoor gyms and football fields are notoriously bad for lighting. The lens that every sports photographer has in their bag is the 70-200 f2.8. They will have others but the go-to lens is the 70-200. This lens is expensive, but you have time to save and there are third party alternatives. I'm not a Nikon shooter, but I do know some of their cameras are limited on lens usage (DX vs FX, I think). Because I'm out of my element with the Nikon system, I'll leave this to a Nikon shooter to explain. I can speak from personal experience with my own system because I own a 50-200 (same specs as the Nikon 55-200) and a 70-200. The 50-200 is never on the camera for sports whether the light is good or not. My lens (a Sigma 70-200) has the Hyper Sonic Motor (HSM) that focuses quickly and silently. The only time I carry the 50-200 is when I expect good lighting and I want a go very light (weight). The consumer 50-200 is significantly lighter than the 70-200.

I am a sports photographer (Nascar, IndyCar, NHRA, ARCA, etc.)

My three sports lenses are: Sigma 28-70 f2.8, Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and Sigma 100-300 f4.

Just another thing to think about!

 

[havoc315]

You guys need to take it off this forum. It's getting OLD. This is only one of several threads you guys have done this on. If you were in one of the DVC forums, you would have long since had your posting privaledges suspended. The inconsistencey in policing this forum (and others too) does not forgive the interruption to the rest of us.

Get a room.

LOL. Fair enough. Not sure why I allowed myself to be baited. But you are correct. And I will desist.

 

[WilsonFlyer]

LOL. Fair enough. Not sure why I allowed myself to be baited. But you are correct. And I will desist.

THANK YOU for taking that in the SPIRIT in which it was intended. Tone is the thing that's hardest on these forums since we can't see and hear each other speak.

You both often lend valuable advice to the thread discussions. Just let it go. We can all sort it out if need be.

 

[havoc315]

THANK YOU for taking that in the SPIRIT in which it was intended. Tone is the thing that's hardest on these forums since we can't see and hear each other speak.

You both often lend valuable advice to the thread discussions. Just let it go. We can all sort it out if need be.

That's it, tone is hard to read. So it is easy for small disagreements to get blown up. And I can be spirited in discussion, so I don't just let things go, when I should sometimes.

So I sincerely thank you for stepping in and giving me a firm shake of reason

 

[dkhillerud]

If your intent is to use the 55-200 for sports, then you may want to give that some extra thought. All zoom lenses are not created equal. While the sensor in the 5100 has a very good reputation for ISO/noise range, the 55-200 is a relatively slow lens. Indoor gyms and football fields are notoriously bad for lighting. The lens that every sports photographer has in their bag is the 70-200 f2.8. They will have others but the go-to lens is the 70-200. This lens is expensive, but you have time to save and there are third party alternatives. I'm not a Nikon shooter, but I do know some of their cameras are limited on lens usage (DX vs FX, I think). Because I'm out of my element with the Nikon system, I'll leave this to a Nikon shooter to explain. I can speak from personal experience with my own system because I own a 50-200 (same specs as the Nikon 55-200) and a 70-200. The 50-200 is never on the camera for sports whether the light is good or not. My lens (a Sigma 70-200) has the Hyper Sonic Motor (HSM) that focuses quickly and silently. The only time I carry the 50-200 is when I expect good lighting and I want a go very light (weight). The consumer 50-200 is significantly lighter than the 70-200.

I am a sports photographer (Nascar, IndyCar, NHRA, ARCA, etc.)

My three sports lenses are: Sigma 28-70 f2.8, Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and Sigma 100-300 f4.

Just another thing to think about!

Great, Thanks for the info! That is a spendy lens! I definitely want a fast enough lens though, these kids move fast!

I did end up getting the camera with the kit lens and I am glad I did! This will give me time to get to know the camera and to research exactly which lenses are going to meet my needs the best.

Thanks to everyone for all the help!

 

[dkhillerud]

Adding something with a fixed 2.8 aperture, like the Tamron 17-50 -- would obviously cost a lot more. To a novice, the advantages wouldn't be huge. The main differences would be better low light pictures, and better "bokeh" (the broken focus in the background).

Both of these reasons are very important to me, and played a big part in my decision to get a better camera. Would this be the best lens to use to achieve them, or would another work equally well/better?

I figure I will just start a wish list of lenses!

 

[havoc315]

Both of these reasons are very important to me, and played a big part in my decision to get a better camera. Would this be the best lens to use to achieve them, or would another work equally well/better?

I figure I will just start a wish list of lenses!

That would be the best relatively affordable zoom lens to achieve it. Or, you can get the basic kit lens and supplement it with a nifty fifty, or another fast prime lens. I don't know the Nikon mount very well, but nifty fifties are pretty cheap and can get even better results, because the aperture is even larger. I use a 50mm/f1.7, that I paid about $70 for. So when I need a low light lens or extreme bokeh, I just switch to the nifty fifty. The downside, is no control over focal length, stuck at 50mm, which can sometimes be a bit narrow on a crop dSLR. (Another solution is to get a 35mm prime lens).

Here is a low light "portrait" taken with a nifty fifty. So you can see the low light and bokeh results with a cheap lens option.


untitled-1.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

Both of these reasons are very important to me, and played a big part in my decision to get a better camera. Would this be the best lens to use to achieve them, or would another work equally well/better?

I figure I will just start a wish list of lenses!

I just re-read your posts and one thing jumped off the page. If I'm wrong, correct me, please. In your first post your statement was something like, you preferred the artistic vs the technical aspect of photography. To get the best artistic aspect out of your recent purchase it is imperative to know a little (ok, maybe a lot) about the technical side. I'm going to recommend probably the cheapest thing in photography, knowledge. There is a book out there that comes highly recommended and is an easy read and that is "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Peterson. It can be had for about $16-$18 from Amazon. It does a very good job of explaining the relationship of the "photograhic triangle" of ISO, Shutter Speed and Aperture. These are the very basics of photography. The book, if I remember correctly, is about 180 pages of large print and photos, so it is an easy read. Almost everyone that I have recommended this book to (including myself) got about 1/3-1/2 way through and had the "AHA" moment.

Again, If I am wrong about your level of experience please disregard this post! Good luck and remember "shoot more, shoot more often!"

 

[mom2rtk]

I just re-read your posts and one thing jumped off the page. If I'm wrong, correct me, please. In your first post your statement was something like, you preferred the artistic vs the technical aspect of photography. To get the best artistic aspect out of your recent purchase it is imperative to know a little (ok, maybe a lot) about the technical side. I'm going to recommend probably the cheapest thing in photography, knowledge. There is a book out there that comes highly recommended and is an easy read and that is "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Peterson. It can be had for about $16-$18 from Amazon. It does a very good job of explaining the relationship of the "photograhic triangle" of ISO, Shutter Speed and Aperture. These are the very basics of photography. The book, if I remember correctly, is about 180 pages of large print and photos, so it is an easy read. Almost everyone that I have recommended this book to (including myself) got about 1/3-1/2 way through and had the "AHA" moment.

Again, If I am wrong about your level of experience please disregard this post! Good luck and remember "shoot more, shoot more often!"

I totally agree with this! It's actually pretty awesome when it all finally comes together.

 

[WilsonFlyer]

I just re-read your posts and one thing jumped off the page. If I'm wrong, correct me, please. In your first post your statement was something like, you preferred the artistic vs the technical aspect of photography. To get the best artistic aspect out of your recent purchase it is imperative to know a little (ok, maybe a lot) about the technical side. I'm going to recommend probably the cheapest thing in photography, knowledge. There is a book out there that comes highly recommended and is an easy read and that is "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Peterson. It can be had for about $16-$18 from Amazon. It does a very good job of explaining the relationship of the "photograhic triangle" of ISO, Shutter Speed and Aperture. These are the very basics of photography. The book, if I remember correctly, is about 180 pages of large print and photos, so it is an easy read. Almost everyone that I have recommended this book to (including myself) got about 1/3-1/2 way through and had the "AHA" moment.

Again, If I am wrong about your level of experience please disregard this post! Good luck and remember "shoot more, shoot more often!"

{Like}

 

[dkhillerud]

Again, If I am wrong about your level of experience please disregard this post! Good luck and remember "shoot more, shoot more often!"

You are not wrong about my level of experience, so thank you for the recommendation! Book is ordered!

 

[photo_chick]

Both of these reasons are very important to me, and played a big part in my decision to get a better camera. Would this be the best lens to use to achieve them, or would another work equally well/better?

I figure I will just start a wish list of lenses!

To get a shallower depth of field (that gives you the out of focus background) you just need to learn to control depth of field. The easiest way is with a lens with a wide aperture, that is a lower f stop number. This is why a lot of us pick up fast primes that open up to f/1.8 or larger. Not only do they get you great low light work, but they make getting a shallow depth of field really easy. But it's not the only way to get there. A longer focal length also helps create a shallower depth of field as does getting physically closer to your subject. And you can control depth of field with any camera. While it's far easier with a DSLR it's very possible with a point and shoot as well.

This veers a little OT, but bokeh was mentioned and it is a term for the quality of the out of focus areas, it's used as another measure of lens quality. It's not the actual term for the out of focus areas. This is a very nit picky distinction but it can be important down the road. Anyway, to get better bokeh you have to look at the structure of the lens. Generally more aperture blades = better bokeh because it makes the out of focus highlights rounder and they blend together, making it creamy and smooth looking. Really high end lenses not only have more aperture blades and they are often also curved which helps get that circle even more. But this, like I said, is a nit picky image detail thing and it isn't something I've seen a lot of newer photographers worry too much about, because really, you just want the shallow depth of field that leaves you with a good out of focus background, right?



I second the recommendation to get Understanding exposure, or a similar book, as well. Knowledge is really the cheapest and easiest way to get the images you want out of any camera.

 

[havoc315]

Generally more aperture blades = better bokeh because it makes the out of focus highlights rounder and they blend together, making it creamy and smooth looking. Really high end lenses not only have more aperture blades and they are often also curved which helps get that circle even more.

That's actually a very helpful description, and helps expand my understanding. Thank you.