Is the D3100 a good beginner camera?

J

jeremyshaw

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 26, 2009
Messages
12,511
EDIT: for TL;DR: I had a taste of the good stuff. Now I only have the bad stuff and an unknown quantity. Is a D3100 good enough? I'm not willing to spend much above 600usd for the whole operation :) thank you! -Jeremy

Hello,

I'm sorry for asking here. I did do a cursorary search just in case, but came up with a thread from mid-late 2010.

I'm thinking of getting a D3100. All I got right now is a Casio 10MP camera from 4 years ago?? I tried one of our workplace's cannon? DSLRs and I didn't think much of it then. But looking at the pictures I take now vs what the cannon? camera spit out easily (I did take one semester basic photography class (mostly film) and have a few binders of shots to show for it :)), I realized my point and shoot is lacking, severely.


So.... this is probably the wrong way to ask, however, is the D3100 a decent choice for the price? 580usd on amazon right now, and that's about as much as I am willing to spend. I've heard other cameras don't come with the lens!? and this one does come with a (basic?) lens to start with? Would this be better than the Sony HD video camera I've been using (has an onboard HDD/flashmem? and 1080i video capability. Cost 1000usd at the time [2008/2009], lol :( Much better than my point and shoot as it is, but seemingly not as good as the workplace camera) I'll buy within the month.

Thank you very much for reading :)
-Jeremy Shaw
 
Last edited:
It should be more than adequate for most people that aren't going to be doing this professionally and don't want to spend a whole lot of a bunch of kit. While I can't really give specific recommendations on the Nikon side as all I have at home is Canon and M4/3 stuff, one thing you should keep in mind, that it's the person behind the viewfinder that makes the difference, not the camera (to a point naturally). With DSLRs, you normally can buy just the body alone or get a kit with a lens (on the less expensive models at least). For now, the kit lens should be sufficient, but you can always get more later on if you choose too (and they don't have to be that expensive either). It will definitely take better photos than your video camera or point and shoot though. I might be a bit biased towards it, but if you want something slightly smaller but with the capability of a DSLR, you might want to look at the M4/3 options as well. I'm quite fond of my Panasonic GF1.
 
All DSLR cameras are sold as body only (no lens) or as a kit (with a lens). I'm guessing you just haven't run into many kits in your searches. It's up to the buyer to pick what he needs, a camera with or without a lens, and this is simply to cater your needs. In this case, you're probably better of getting a kit (that is, a camera body with a lens).

Will it be better than your Sony HD video camera?Maybe? I have absolutely no experience with video cameras, but I'd imagine a still camera would produce better still images.

With that said, yes the D3100 is a decent camera for its price. I only use Nikon products, but there could a better option on the Canon side. I think the t1i is in the similar price range (no idea how it compares to the the D3100, though). At the end of the day, whichever camera you decide to go with, you'll be happy with your choice.

The one thing I can suggest, and this is probably more important than looking at the camera pixels and such, is getting the feel of the camera, and getting comfortable with it. Go to the store, grab each body with the lens attached, try to hand hold it, play with the menus. See which camera feels best. There's nothing worst than having a piece of equipment which makes your hands uncomfortable. It'll make you hate photography.
 
Blue Fox said:
It should be more than adequate for most people that aren't going to be doing this professionally and don't want to spend a whole lot of a bunch of kit. While I can't really give specific recommendations on the Nikon side as all I have at home is Canon and M4/3 stuff, one thing you should keep in mind, that it's the person behind the viewfinder that makes the difference, not the camera (to a point naturally). With DSLRs, you normally can buy just the body alone or get a kit with a lens (on the less expensive models at least). For now, the kit lens should be sufficient, but you can always get more later on if you choose too (and they don't have to be that expensive either). It will definitely take better photos than your video camera or point and shoot though. I might be a bit biased towards it, but if you want something slightly smaller but with the capability of a DSLR, you might want to look at the M4/3 options as well. I'm quite fond of my Panasonic GF1.
Click to expand...
Ah, thank you :) I'll take a look at the M4/3 options, and hope this doesn't end up as big a money sink as my computers and headphones :(
northrop said:
All DSLR cameras are sold as body only (no lens) or as a kit (with a lens). I'm guessing you just haven't run into many kits in your searches. It's up to the buyer to pick what he needs, a camera with or without a lens, and this is simply to cater your needs. In this case, you're probably better of getting a kit (that is, a camera body with a lens).

Will it be better than your Sony HD video camera?Maybe? I have absolutely no experience with video cameras, but I'd imagine a still camera would produce better still images.

With that said, yes the D3100 is a decent camera for its price. I only use Nikon products, but there could a better option on the Canon side. I think the t1i is in the similar price range (no idea how it compares to the the D3100, though). At the end of the day, whichever camera you decide to go with, you'll be happy with your choice.

The one thing I can suggest, and this is probably more important than looking at the camera pixels and such, is getting the feel of the camera, and getting comfortable with it. Go to the store, grab each body with the lens attached, try to hand hold it, play with the menus. See which camera feels best. There's nothing worst than having a piece of equipment which makes your hands uncomfortable. It'll make you hate photography.
Click to expand...

Thank you :) I chose the D3100 since it was the newest out in my price range... not the best criteria, however, I did try it out in a local Sears :) It seemed nice, but I have no way to tell, meself, if the image quality is better than my HD cam's stills (it *should* be, due to the lens and image proc??), however, I have an old, nameless Cannon 35mm film SLR that I still have and love, but I no longer have access to the chems nor a darkroom, or equipment to develop my own film and make my own prints (mostly stuff around the neighborhood lakes and parks) :( So I am going down this route as I'm also running out of good B&W film (bought a huge box set from my photography teacher before she left -.-). I don't have a lot of interest in photgraphy as it is, but I realized image quality isn't something I want to give up, since I take a lot of indoor family shots, too, and my point and shoot has a tendancy to look worse than an iphone 3gs' cam at that.



Allright, I'll can it and stop editing my posts. So I see I basically have a lot of my own research left to do?? Thank you for your help and info :) I have a few ideas now :)
 
the 18-55mm kit lens that comes with the d3100 should do you fine, since you mainly want to use it for indoor and family shots, I believe the d3100 also has auto-focus when it records in 720p @ 24 or 25fps. I, myself own a t2i mainly for the 1080p video capability.
 
jeremyshaw said:
Thank you :) I chose the D3100 since it was the newest out in my price range... not the best criteria, however, I did try it out in a local Sears :) It seemed nice, but I have no way to tell, meself, if the image quality is better than my HD cam's stills (it *should* be, due to the lens and image proc??), however, I have an old, nameless Cannon 35mm film SLR that I still have and love, but I no longer have access to the chems nor a darkroom, or equipment to develop my own film and make my own prints (mostly stuff around the neighborhood lakes and parks) :( So I am going down this route as I'm also running out of good B&W film (bought a huge box set from my photography teacher before she left -.-). I don't have a lot of interest in photgraphy as it is, but I realized image quality isn't something I want to give up, since I take a lot of indoor family shots, too, and my point and shoot has a tendancy to look worse than an iphone 3gs' cam at that.



Allright, I'll can it and stop editing my posts. So I see I basically have a lot of my own research left to do?? Thank you for your help and info :) I have a few ideas now :)
Click to expand...
Why not list the Canon lenses that you own? I'm not sure on the compatibility of the lenses with Canon (due to the mount switch years back, and you not listing which camera body you own), but maybe getting a Canon camera would be a more beneficial option to you, due to already owning a lens or two? List the lenses (or at least try to remember which camera it is), and I'm sure our Canon shooters can help you out :D
 
Im sorry, its a really short <3" lens, but is detachable... its from the 1990s though.

I'll get more info once I get back home.
Posted via Mobile Device
 
jeremyshaw said:
Im sorry, its a really short <3" lens, but is detachable... its from the 1990s though.

I'll get more info once I get back home.
Posted via Mobile Device
Click to expand...

canon t2i (550d), t1i (500d) and t3 (1100d) use EF-S and EF lenses.

the t1i and t3 run around $599 each,for the body + 18-55mm lens
 
Last edited:
Cannon T70 with FD 50mm 1:1.8 lens

Old enough not to have autofocus. I still have a two piece leater case for it that protects it against randomness under useage. I'm not too sure what these numbers mean (I think??), so I'm gonna be up on google/bing for a bit before reposting.

EDIT: a good friend is telling me the cannon t3i just launched last month!! It has more than all the features I was looking for (1080p video shooting, the flip out screen I'm used to on a camcorder, and also has a HDMI out - could potentially replace my Sony HD cam, though the HD cam is likely smaller, still)! It's near 900usd(with lens)... is it worthwhile pushing my budget up 300usd (I will simply forgoe getting another GTX570 for SLI - it's too hot with just one, and it's still freezing outside with no heating on :eek:)?? Or is it a personal matter? I don't think there will be any retail demo models to play around with for a while, however :( So...

this one:
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-T3i-Dig...V90Y/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1300775961&sr=8-1
 
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
jeremyshaw said:
Cannon T70 with FD 50mm 1:1.8 lens

Old enough not to have autofocus. I still have a two piece leater case for it that protects it against randomness under useage. I'm not too sure what these numbers mean (I think??), so I'm gonna be up on google/bing for a bit before reposting.
Click to expand...

I bought an FD to EF mount lens converter (around $30 shipped) and I have used it with 3 FD lenses on my t2i, it works fine, although you can only shoot in manual and aperture priority modes when using the converter. (can't change the aperture settings and autofocus when using the converter too)
 
When starting off, I would invest the extra money into other lenses instead of a higher end body.
 
its pretty much a t2i with slightly more features. the t2i is priced at $100 less than the t3i. I believe they both use the same sensor. Although, I did hear the video recording in the t3i is slightly better than the video recording in the t2i.
 
Blue Fox said:
When starting off, I would invest the extra money into other lenses instead of a higher end body.
Click to expand...

ah, I see :) So I should go Cannon or Nikkon for this route? I'm looking at lenses, and they aren't cheap :(

Jimi_Shuffler said:
its pretty much a t2i with slightly more features. the t2i is priced at $100 less than the t3i. I believe they both use the same sensor. Although, I did hear the video recording in the t3i is slightly better than the video recording in the t2i.
Click to expand...

thank you :) I'll stick to a t2i, then. If the video is worse, then I guess I'll let this become as much of a money sink as my computers and Their audio...
 
jeremyshaw said:
ah, I see :) So I should go Cannon or Nikkon for this route? I'm looking at lenses, and they aren't cheap :(



thank you :) I'll stick to a t2i, then. If the video is worse, then I guess I'll let this become as much of a money sink as my computers and Their audio...
Click to expand...

oh forgot one more thing, the t2i has no flip out screen.
 
Jimi_Shuffler said:
oh forgot one more thing, the t2i has no flip out screen.
Click to expand...
ach... I noticed that :( I think I'll deal with it. Since it seems like lenses don't depreciate in value whatsoever (!!??), I'll go as suggested by Blue Fox, and go for better lenses upfront vs better "body."
Blue Fox said:
They can be expensive, but they don't have to be. Not going to turn it into a Nikon vs Canon thing (as there isn't a clear cut winner honestly), but if you go with Canon, the 50mm f/1.8 is hard to beat. It's the best selling lens on Amazon for a reason: http://www.amazon.com/Canon-50mm-1-8-Camera-Lens/dp/B00007E7JU/
Click to expand...

ah :)

so...


http://www.amazon.com/Canon-T1i-Dig...RPQS/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1300777745&sr=8-2

+

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-50mm-1-8-Camera-Lens/dp/B00007E7JU/ref=dp_cp_ob_p_title_3


?? Is it wrong to want an,uh (don't know how to put this), longer lens?? That one kinda looks like the one I already have (though I'm sure it's better in almost any way :p) I know it probably sounds silly, but I have seen some really long lenses out there, or are those abnormal?

So maybe this lens? (I'm serious)
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-75-300m...?s=photo&ie=UTF8&qid=1300778534&sr=1-17&rps=1
since I have 900usd now in the overall budget for this project, I could splurge a little bit...?? or is this the wrong direction?
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
Do you want a telephoto lens? That's all length normally indicates (longer doesn't mean better, just a different purpose). Whether that one will be practical really depends on what you plan on using it for primarily. This should give you an idea of what that lens will produce (multiply the values of that lens by 1.6 to get the proper focal length): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_length#In_photography
 
Blue Fox said:
Do you want a telephoto lens? That's all length normally indicates (longer doesn't mean better, just a different purpose). Whether that one will be practical really depends on what you plan on using it for primarily. This should give you an idea of what that lens will produce (multiply the values of that lens by 1.6 to get the proper focal length): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_length#In_photography
Click to expand...

oh, I see. I'm mostly at events (family photos), and I'm reading that lower fstop values are good for that (indoor stuff)? So I don't need the length? okay, I'll get the lens you recommended+t2i, then (will wait about 3 days for more input, just in case something amazing pops up) :p :)


Thank you very much!!
 
Lower f-stop means more light is being let in and therefore you can shoot in poorer lighting without having to worry about blurry shots from having to use a slow shutter speed. It also results in a shallower depth of field (which can be either an advantage or disadvantage). Thing is, if you find that the lenses you have at hand aren't sufficient for what you're going to be using them for, you can always get another. Beats buying a few upfront and then never using some. I have a feeling you'd get a lot of use out of the 50mm f/1.8 lens though (just remember that it isn't a zoom lens).
 
Blue Fox said:
They can be expensive, but they don't have to be. Not going to turn it into a Nikon vs Canon thing (as there isn't a clear cut winner honestly), but if you go with Canon, the 50mm f/1.8 is hard to beat. It's the best selling lens on Amazon for a reason: http://www.amazon.com/Canon-50mm-1-8-Camera-Lens/dp/B00007E7JU/
Click to expand...
I can't really agree with this suggestion. On the full frame camera, 50mm focal length is fine, but I find it to be a little too restrictive on a crop camera. Yes, the lens is cheap, but a 35mm is more suitable in this situation. Since jeremyshaw wants this for events (family photos) I think he'll benefit more from a slightly wider lens. I picked up the 50mm lens for my crop camera years ago with the same premise, it was cheap, and now it's collecting dust. I'd recommend that jeremyshaw just sticks with the 18-55mm lens for now, and figures out which focal lengths he's using the most, and go from there. Just my $.02
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
^You can group it like this:
6-30mm - wide angle
30-70mm - standard
70-800mm - telephoto (narrow)

"Wider" simply means it provides a wider view. In this case, the 35mm compared to 50mm will provide a wider area coverage, hence "wider lens"
 
oh..... thank you :) Well, could I just stand further back with a 50mm lense, or will that affect the lighting? (I'm thinking about the flash bulb).
 
Of course you can stand further back, as you should always look for better shots. Your legs are your most primitive "zoom" ;) This isn't always a problem when you're outdoors, it's when you're inside when you start wishing for a wider lens (or a larger room ;)). This is why I stopped using 50mm indoors. Yes, the light is great, but that's about it. YMMV.
 
For beginners, I'd agree that the kit lens 18-55mm is probably the way to go.

I have a 50mm prime lens for my crop-frame camera, and it is very hard to use in a lot of instances since it essentially becomes a 75mm lens. It works great for individual portraits or shots of small objects, but if you want to get a shot of a group of more than 2 or 3 people, you'll have to stand back about 10-15 feet, and indoors you won't always have that kind of space to work with.

Since you're just starting out with photography, if you want a prime lens (non-zoom, usually larger aperture for capturing low-light scenes) I'd recommend getting something around a 35mm f/1.8 lens for starters.

But since you're just starting out, it would probably be easiest to get a cheap zoom lens (something like the kit 18-55 or something more extreme like an 18-105mm). These will have worse image quality than a prime lens or more expensive pro zoom lenses (and you'll have to use a flash for low-light shots), but using a lens with a larger range on the zoom will let you get a feel for the focal lengths you're more likely to use. Just take a look at the exif data on your shots to see what range you use more often, then pick up better lenses specific to those ranges later on.
 
okay, I'll get the full kit then? I do have a 50mm using the FD mount (had to look that up :p - previous post), and someone mentioned FD--EF adaptors being cheap? So I'll just get the kit and the adaptor and have the best of both :D (I think...)??

I'm sorry for the flurry of ignorance, I'll try to not ask any pointless questions from here on.
 
Jeremy, in regards to your original question of, "Is the D3100 good enough", the answer would be yes for most people. I've seen a lot of very nice pictures taken with it. You'll gain additional features like in body motor, audio in for an external microphone, more video options by upgrading the body, off camera flash commanding.

I'd recommend that you buy the kit with the 18-55mm lens and a little later get a nice flash like the 430EX II or similar. The 18-55 will let you learn about focal lengths, apertures, shutter speeds and the different modes and features on your camera.

The flash will let you bounce the light off the ceiling and produce some nice lighting. You can tilt the flash head up on these. This works really well inside when taking pictures of people.

Using the flash on the camera will give you the flat direct on light like point and shoots do, and depending on you shutter speed, ISO, flash settings etc will have some details in the background - I don't like this look. A second option is using just natural lighting indoors, combined with the Auto ISO feature. As long as your room is reasonably lit and you have right right exposure the higher ISO pictures should print just fine, and downscale for the web fine. I love the Auto ISO features of my Nikon D300. Once you get your camera you should explore these 2 options and see if they work for you.

The 50mm really isn't wide enough, and you'll find that your indoor rooms don't let you back-up far enough to get the composition you want. I almost never use my 50mm indoors, and instead use my wider 35mm f/1.8 (35mm f/2 for Canon which I'd recommend to save for instead of the 50mm).

There is a lot to learn on the camera, and you'll definitely want to read the manual and have your camera in hand trying out everything. Also remember you'll probably want a 2nd battery(~440 shots with the t2i battery), a memory card or 2, a bag to carry it all in, maybe some sort of tripod and remote cable release.

Regarding Nikon vs Canon. Nikon is in need of a refresh of the D5000 to compete with the T2i and T3i. The Nikon D3100 has 2 more focus points, a little cheaper, possibly more accurate auto focus, but much less overall features than the T2i T3i(whether you'd use any of those features is another question). My Nikon D300S doesn't have a swivel screen and I kind of wish it did, for $100 upgrade I would have gone for it, it would be useful for video and the hard compositions where the camera is near the ground or above your head. Right now I take the whole spray and pray route if the camera is near the ground looking up or above my head. In addition to the tilt screen on the T3i, I also saw that it has real high resolution digital zooming during video, I didn't look at any videos on this, but it sounds very interesting.

Don't forget to go through the [H]ard|Forum commission links before you buy. If you buy from Amazon make sure it is coming directly from Amazon and not some third party(easier returns if from Amazon). Otherwise B&H Photo Video and Adorama are both very reputable stores.
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
Okay, thank you :) I got a lot of things from B&H photo in the past, I think some of my audio equipement, too o.0

I'll make sure to help support [H] :)
 
well, a friend was willing to sell his D3100 starter kit for 450usd... so I bit on that. I hope that isn't the wrong way to go about things, I feel like I kinda just spat on everyone who spent their time and effort to give me advice.

I'm really sorry for the burnt time.




-Jeremy Shaw
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top