Snakehn Posted December 2, 2010 Author Share Posted December 2, 2010 It's nice to have friends in the right places :) Heck Yeah Lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snakehn Posted December 6, 2010 Author Share Posted December 6, 2010 a rookie question, i was looking at pics taken with a d3000 on flickr and found this particular that has such nice color effect, here is the link was this color achieved by the camera or was it entirely done by software? like aperture (mac) or lightroom... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazzy88ss Posted December 6, 2010 Share Posted December 6, 2010 That's all post processing. Getting the correct exposure in the camera is important, but color/tints/effects and things like that is all done in post. That could easily be done in Aperture/Lightroom/PS or other things like that. I suck a post processing, so that's about the limit of my knowledge for ya :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
remus_lupin Posted December 6, 2010 Share Posted December 6, 2010 idk much either, but clearly there was a reduction in clarity (selective, only on the background) and an obvious increase of highlights... looks like blacks were pumped up, decrease in red saturation (maybe)... they used CS4, that's about all I could tell ya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snakehn Posted December 12, 2010 Author Share Posted December 12, 2010 quick question, which one of these is better? AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 55-200mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G i guess it all depends of the kind of pictures going to be taken, but being that both are the same price, which one would be a better choice to start? i'm shooting all kind of pics right now so i don't know. thanks guys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SojIrOu Posted December 12, 2010 Share Posted December 12, 2010 The 35mm is great for low light photos. However, you'll have to move around a lot to get the shot you want. The 55-200mm is a simple and light zoom lens that'll complement your 18-55mm lens and give you more reach. So you'll probably find that unless you really take lots of night/indoor photos, you wouldn't need the 35mm yet as it overlaps with your 18-55mm. That said, in the long run the 35mm is the one to keep and you'd find the 55-200mm too slow or too short. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draconian Guppy Posted December 12, 2010 Share Posted December 12, 2010 ^^ +1 I'd say the 35mm is a keeper, whilst the 55-200mm is meh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argote Posted December 12, 2010 Share Posted December 12, 2010 The 35mm is great for low light photos. However, you'll have to move around a lot to get the shot you want. The 55-200mm is a simple and light zoom lens that'll complement your 18-55mm lens and give you more reach. So you'll probably find that unless you really take lots of night/indoor photos, you wouldn't need the 35mm yet as it overlaps with your 18-55mm. That said, in the long run the 35mm is the one to keep and you'd find the 55-200mm too slow or too short. This is basically spot on, the 55-200 will be more useful initially while you find your style of photography and the 35/1.8 is more useful once you start finding situations where low light performance is more important. Over time you'll outgrow the 55-200 but will probably keep the 35/1.8 around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
remus_lupin Posted December 12, 2010 Share Posted December 12, 2010 Truth^ idk when was the last time I used my 70-300 VR II.... For everyday stuff I have in my "smaller" Lowepro bag, my tokina 11-16, nikon 35mm f/1.8 (same one that is being discussed) and my nikon 105mm 2.8 macro VR... The rest of my stuff, including my 18-105 stays in my other bag, until I think I may need them specifically... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dane Posted December 12, 2010 Share Posted December 12, 2010 well, I'm oficially a new D3000 owner, total was $293 after taxes, couldn't let that deal pass, will be playingi with it all day tomorrow. soon will be "investing" in new lenses Where did you get it for that price?! Nevermind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon_ Posted December 23, 2010 Share Posted December 23, 2010 The D3000 is the most hideous dslr they have ever created. It is unbearably slow at processing images, and the sensor uses old CCD technology which makes it poor in low light. I'd go for a d3100, or a d5000 as they've been discontinued they can be found quite cheaply. The d5000 is essentially a d90 (same sensor and processing engine) at a fraction of the cost. If price is a definite issue, look for a second hand d40. That camera to this day is the finest and most reliable entry-level i've had my hands on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
threetonesun Posted December 23, 2010 Share Posted December 23, 2010 For DX lens, buy either the 35 or 50mm fixed (depending on your shooting style. I like the 50mm for portraits) and save up your pennies and get the 18-200VR. Only lenses you'll need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazzy88ss Posted December 23, 2010 Share Posted December 23, 2010 Only lenses you'll need. lol? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argote Posted December 23, 2010 Share Posted December 23, 2010 Yeah I think it's the first time I've seen someone recommend a super-zoom (other than the "Bigma") for something other than convenience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon_ Posted December 23, 2010 Share Posted December 23, 2010 Yeah that super zoom would be a bit of a waste of time. Tamron 17-50 f2.8 is a pretty good buy though, good for portraits and general shooting too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
threetonesun Posted December 23, 2010 Share Posted December 23, 2010 Yeah I think it's the first time I've seen someone recommend a super-zoom (other than the "Bigma") for something other than convenience. Eh, 18-200 is perfect for travel photography. You'll never switch lenses. Anything outside of that range and you'd want a more specialized lens, but for general photography, that 18-200VR is perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazzy88ss Posted December 23, 2010 Share Posted December 23, 2010 Yea I'd consider an 18-200 if I traveled a lot and couldn't bring 2 bodies. I have a tamron 17-50 2.8 and would recommend it for beginners. There's a new 17-50 f2.8 VC (VR) version that's good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argote Posted December 23, 2010 Share Posted December 23, 2010 Eh, 18-200 is perfect for travel photography. You'll never switch lenses. Anything outside of that range and you'd want a more specialized lens, but for general photography, that 18-200VR is perfect. As I mentioned, super-zoom lenses are usually recommended for travel and convenience only. Image Quality wise they are a bit behind regular zooms and primes, they also usually have smaller apertures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snakehn Posted December 27, 2010 Author Share Posted December 27, 2010 The D300 might not be a top of the line camera but for the price i found it, i couldn't resist, and the way things are going right now, anything more expensive than than is not an option. im not traveling much right now, but probably around the summer next year we might go to some nice outdoor places so i was thinking about the 55-200mm but as i play with the camera more and more i find myself shooting portraits more than anything, the quality of the stock lens is fine with me, being that im totally new to DSLRs, anything this camera does is better than what i did with my previous camera, but if the 35mm one offers even better quality for a starter like me, i think i might pick that one first. my wife bought me my first accessory, the wireless shutter remote lol, anyway we are enjoying this thing very much. do you guys shoot more in RAW format or JPEG? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argote Posted December 27, 2010 Share Posted December 27, 2010 The D300 might not be a top of the line camera but for the price i found it, i couldn't resist, and the way things are going right now, anything more expensive than than is not an option. im not traveling much right now, but probably around the summer next year we might go to some nice outdoor places so i was thinking about the 55-200mm but as i play with the camera more and more i find myself shooting portraits more than anything, the quality of the stock lens is fine with me, being that im totally new to DSLRs, anything this camera does is better than what i did with my previous camera, but if the 35mm one offers even better quality for a starter like me, i think i might pick that one first. my wife bought me my first accessory, the wireless shutter remote lol, anyway we are enjoying this thing very much. do you guys shoot more in RAW format or JPEG? I shoot all RAW and convert what I want to JPG after Post Processing. If you're tight on money you can also consider getting used lenses, if you can find a good copy you can save quite a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draconian Guppy Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 +1 raw for "important" shots, jpeg for snapshots. IMO RAW is only a big deal if you're going to post process, if not, just shoot highest jpeg quality the camera has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
threetonesun Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 As I mentioned, super-zoom lenses are usually recommended for travel and convenience only. Image Quality wise they are a bit behind regular zooms and primes, they also usually have smaller apertures. Unless you're setting up your shots, most of the time convenience will get you a better photo than a "better" lens. But, to the OP, if you like doing portraits, the 1.8 50mm is a great, cheap lens. On the DX body it's closer to a 85mm, which is great for portrait work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dane Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 I am torn between the D3000 and the D3100. A store has the 3100 for me on hold to go get soon. It's a bit more, but its only a $105 difference. Although. The D3100 is $599, they have a D3000 sitting there ina bundle for $599 with an extra lense I think non VR 55-200. I want to take night time shots, and long exposure, and I know the sensor is better in the 3100. I am just torn. 3100 alone is $599 3000 by itself is $499. UGH! Although I believe the picture quality is better on the 3100 and I can pick up a VR or non VR 55-200 cheaper on amazon maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draconian Guppy Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 If night times shots is your priority, then go with the 3100, better sensor, period. IF you have the money, then simply go with the D3100. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dane Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 If night times shots is your priority, then go with the 3100, better sensor, period. IF you have the money, then simply go with the D3100. Yeah I want to do some work with night shots. I go out and take pictures of accidents, so it would be amazing at day, and I want it to be good at the picture being decent size and not being grainy. I've been told the D3000 SUCKS at night. Plus some extra christmas money i'm putting 90 cash towards it so that brings it down. Plus if best buy lets me use the 10% off coupon, although its on sale so they might not. After I get paid next week I want to go get a bag, and UV filter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts