Up until yesterday, I was a D200 shooter. I did a lot of night shooting with it even though people say it "doesn't have good low light performance". A lot of it is technique and trial and error. You need to be able to finesse the settings, not just depend on auto settings, and brace yourself firmly for longer exposures. Faster lenses and cameras with better high ISO are helpful, but even there, you're only talking a couple of stops. I bet if you worked the settings in manual a bit, you would get what you want.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
D3000 owner; should I go for a new camera or new lens?
- Thread starter darshie
- Start date
Great analysis !
You have got the point of my post and my doubts about the various solutions.
The flash is a good buy, but for now I am focusing on camera and lenses and see if this resolve the issue.
Got a 5100 for a good price (sub 400 refurb, 1 year warranty), and I am getting next week a 35 1.4 AF-S and try with this combo...this is as far as my budget can stretch for now
You have got the point of my post and my doubts about the various solutions.
The flash is a good buy, but for now I am focusing on camera and lenses and see if this resolve the issue.
Got a 5100 for a good price (sub 400 refurb, 1 year warranty), and I am getting next week a 35 1.4 AF-S and try with this combo...this is as far as my budget can stretch for now
P
Patco
Guest
Mr Physics
Leading Member
Your kit exactly describes my first 3 pieces of DSLR equipment. The D3000 did very well in good light (I still love the rich colors of the CCD sensor) but it only yielded good files at 800 ISO or below (with a generous amount of noise reduction at 800 ISO). I've since given this same kit to my daughter to try and re-spark her interest in photography. My forth piece was the 35mm f/1.8 G from Adorama for $199 USD and had a great effect on my low light images.
The other acquisition that comes to my mind is the addition of a flashgun. If you bounce the flash off of reasonable low ceilings you'll always have the light you need to bring your shutter speed down. Our film shooting brethren can testify to utility of a good flashgun. There is a bit of a learning curve with flash lighting but it isn't calculus. Many here will insist on a $300 to $500 iTTL Nikon flashgun but I'll suggest an inexpensive alternative: a $70 Yongnuo 560, a manual flashgun. Once you dial in the flash intensity (by shooting, chimping and adjusting) the lighting in most environments doesn't change much.
Best regards,
Tony
The other acquisition that comes to my mind is the addition of a flashgun. If you bounce the flash off of reasonable low ceilings you'll always have the light you need to bring your shutter speed down. Our film shooting brethren can testify to utility of a good flashgun. There is a bit of a learning curve with flash lighting but it isn't calculus. Many here will insist on a $300 to $500 iTTL Nikon flashgun but I'll suggest an inexpensive alternative: a $70 Yongnuo 560, a manual flashgun. Once you dial in the flash intensity (by shooting, chimping and adjusting) the lighting in most environments doesn't change much.
Best regards,
Tony
When I look at the d5000 review, I don't see where the d5000 is substantially better at high iso than the d60. I'm pretty sure the d3000 is between those two.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond5000/30
If you get the 35/1.8, it will let you use shutter speeds 4x+ faster than the kit lens. So 1/90 instead of 1/15. That's a huge difference for a moving subject. I'd go for that, plus a used flash. In the USA, keh.com has some good used flashes.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond5000/30
If you get the 35/1.8, it will let you use shutter speeds 4x+ faster than the kit lens. So 1/90 instead of 1/15. That's a huge difference for a moving subject. I'd go for that, plus a used flash. In the USA, keh.com has some good used flashes.
GlennW
Senior Member
Steven65 wrote:
You can use nearly every Nikon F lens ever made on the D3000. I recently bought a 30+ year old Tamron 135mm lens from ebay and it's giving me lovely pictures. It's manual focus and manual exposure but the focus indicator light in the viewfinder still functions.darshie wrote:
Thanks a lot; so I cannot buy other brands or use manual focus lenses on the D3000? This is quite limiting....I like AF but if I am sitting on the ground taking landscape pictures I don't really mind to not have it, and save some money
Took a lot of photos of my daughters Christmas Concert using the lens and got good results - £22 well spent
Nikon Lens Compatibility by Ken Rockwell
Nikon Lens Compatibility by Ken Rockwell
www.kenrockwell.com
Ken Rockwell has a great article on what lens will AF & meter on your D3000. There are workarounds if you do manual exposure & manual focus.Other brand lens will have different terms for AF-S. Newer models may have the upgrades needed for AF & meter.
This also makes a great reason to upgrade to D90/D7000 in DX or go up to D600 in FX.
The way prices keep falling & Nikon has more holiday sales deals you can always save up until you can make the upgrade & change both camera & lens.
P
Patco
Guest
The D3000 will be more or less the same as the D60, which has basically the same 10MP CCD sensor, along with the D40x, D80 and D200 (with the D200 sensor being 4 channel readout, and the others 2 channel). The D5000 has basically the same 12MP sensor as the D90 and D300.
I don't see a "substantial" difference either, but the hyperbole which runs rampant in these forums would have one believing the 10MP CCD would be "blown out of the water" by the 12MP CMOS.
The review does not say that; but if you look at the reference photos using low ISO, you see that compared to the D3xxx sensor, the one on the D5xxx sensor (which is the same that is on the D7xxx series)takes better pictures with less noise.
Reading here and there I have heard the same praise about the D7000 sensor, so you may assume that even if the 5100 has a crippled down processor (otherwise who would spend $500 more to get the 7000?), it takes significantly better pictures than then 3100, using the same lens and ISO.
Agree that a fast lens helps, I am loving so far my 35mm 1.8, but use it on a 5100 is like night and day, compared to the 3100.
Thanks everyone, really I am learning a bunch more reading your posts, compared to my previous readings on other places
So to update you: I went for the lens + camera combo: D5100 as camera, and got rid of the standard 18-55 + D3000.
As lenses I've kept my 55-200 (4-5.6) and I've added a 35mm 1.8, and a 50mm 1.8 manual (it is an old lens; found it on ebay for a joke, and takes really nice pics...too bad that has no CPU so can't get the camera do do any metering on the lens; but brings me back to the time when there was no DSLR). All Nikon of course.
As workhorse/multi purpose I've got the Sigma DC 18-50 (2.8-4.5), which takes incredibly nice pictures, compared to the standard 18-55 kit Nikon; I am really pleased with it!
Now my next step is a good flash, but gotta get first some cash back in the account
Thanks again everyone!
So to update you: I went for the lens + camera combo: D5100 as camera, and got rid of the standard 18-55 + D3000.
As lenses I've kept my 55-200 (4-5.6) and I've added a 35mm 1.8, and a 50mm 1.8 manual (it is an old lens; found it on ebay for a joke, and takes really nice pics...too bad that has no CPU so can't get the camera do do any metering on the lens; but brings me back to the time when there was no DSLR). All Nikon of course.
As workhorse/multi purpose I've got the Sigma DC 18-50 (2.8-4.5), which takes incredibly nice pictures, compared to the standard 18-55 kit Nikon; I am really pleased with it!
Now my next step is a good flash, but gotta get first some cash back in the account
Thanks again everyone!
Yeah, but it's not a dramatic difference. If in a given situation you get really terrible photos with a d3000, then you're not going to get great photos from a d5000. They're just going to be marginally better than really terrible.
The difference between f/4 and f/1.8 /is/ dramatic.
So it is really THAT much difference for just .4 in aperture? I had issues to understand the huge difference in price between 1.8 and 1.4, and now I guess I understand why.
It may be the lens, but using an old D50, I can get better pictures than the D3000
Altho they are not as good as when I use the same lens on the D5100...of course is not the same difference that you can have between a pro like the D3 or D1, and the entry level, but still it makes me feel happier about taking pictures in low light conditions, without having to necessarily use the flash at all cost (or a tripod).
P
Patco
Guest
Ad I understand it, he said the 2 1/3 stop difference between f/4 and f/1.8 is dramatic. The kit zoom is around f/4 at 35mm, while the 35mm prime is f/1.8. Like he said earlier, that can mean over 4x difference in shutter speed (or a two stop difference in ISO setting).
It may be the lens, but using an old D50, I can get better pictures than the D3000
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum