Posted: 9/29/2016 4:07:23 PM EDT
| I have a D3200, I like it, but I only have the lens that came with it. I would like to get some more lenses but should I get a Canon camera? I have the Gopro and now I have my 1st drone inbound. I would like to start getting serious about photography and video making. Can the D3200 do it? |
|
The 3200 is more than a capable camera for most uses.
As far as switching to a Canon, if you are about to start investing into lenses and other gear, the decision would be best now rather than later. I personally prefer Canon cameras and the lens line up Canon offers(muh red ring), but Nikons tend to have better IQ and certain specs for photography when compared directly across models than Canon. Both brands are fantastic. I would recommend shooting both side to side(whether it be through rental companies, or friends) Experience/practice trumps all in the end, though. |
|
Quoted:
The 3200 is more than a capable camera for most uses. As far as switching to a Canon, if you are about to start investing into lenses and other gear, the decision would be best now rather than later. I personally prefer Canon cameras and the lens line up Canon offers(muh red ring), but Nikons tend to have better IQ and certain specs for photography when compared directly across models than Canon. Both brands are fantastic. I would recommend shooting both side to side(whether it be through rental companies, or friends) Experience/practice trumps all in the end, though. This guy gets it. Nikon wins, especially where sensors are concerned. Canon's stuff is just lagging behind for no well explained reason. That said, there's nothing exactly wrong with Canon cameras. To be perfectly fair, the 7D2 is near to perfect of a DX camera as one can get. The Nikon D500 might just slightly edge it out, though. Canon's also got an advantage on lenses in my estimation. I have a particular fancy for their 400mm f/5.6 that Nikon doesn't have an answer for. I say all this...and I still use Nikon cameras. Why? Because the button placement and menus on Nikon cameras fits me better. The Canon way of doing things just fills my head full of fuck. I can't get comfortable using one of their cameras. 
|
|
My first DSLR was a Nikon D5000. I had a Sony compact camera before that to see if I would use one enough and found that I did.
I got a few lenses for it and then got a D7000. Even though I had several DX lenses I decided to go to full frame (FX) purely because of the superb qualities of the Nikkor 24-70 f2.8. It is an awesome piece of glass. Without getting (too deeply LOL) into the the Nikon - Canon debate I will say that they both have advantages and there is simply no reason that you would need to consider changing to Canon. Since you already have a very serviceable camera, get the lenses you want and keep going. If you want to move up in bodies the D5200 is a nice improvement as is the D7200. For DX lenses the Nikkor 17-55 f2.8 G is a fantastic lens, I had one. The mistake I made was running across the Nikkor 24 - 70 f 2.8 G at a good price and buying it. The instant I snapped it on my D7000 and saw what a magnificent piece of glass it was I knew I had to get an FX body. I sold the D7000, 17 - 55 and other lenses I had a got a D600. There is really no need for you to get a better body at this point, the D3200 is quite serviceable. The limitation of DX is finding decent, affordable lenses at the short/wide end and that is true for both Canon and Nikon. It is due to the physics of the smaller sensor. A 24 mm lens on a DX has the viewing angle of a 36 mm lens on an FX so you have to find shorter focal length lenses for a DX to get the same width as a 50% longer lens on an FX. (Nikon terminology.) You get it back on the other end. a 200 mm lens on a DX has the view of a 300 mm lens on an FX. The Canon ratio might be 1.4 instead of 1.5. The Nikkor 16 - 85 will take you a long way and if you want more reach there are several lenses in the 70 - 200 or 300 range. I would encourage you to get one lens and use it extensively to learn composition because unless you do it a lot, changing lenses is a bit cumbersome and you probably won't do it as often as you think you will anyway. To touch on the Nikon - Canon thing. It is really only a Canon owner thing. Nikon owners couldn't give a shit what Canon owners think. LOL It never fails that when I am with a group of camera owners, some Canon owner will start telling me that Canon is just as good and Nikon is too expensive. It is like guys with little dicks telling you what a man they are. LOL There is nothing wring with Canon. I would seriously doubt that you will EVER shoot a pic that could have been better with tho other brand. I am working outside the US now and wanted a lens that was easier to carry than the 24 - 70 so I got a Nikkor 24 - 120 f4. It is fantastic! I shot a bunch of indoor pix last Sunday where flash was not permitted. The f4 is fast enough that most of the shots were at 1,600 and some at 800 and came out great but I have a lot of experience holding a camera steady. Going from f2.8 to f4 you only lose one ISO step e.g. 400 to 800. Keep the D3200 and get one lens and get very good with it. It is like the old saying "Beware of a man with only one gun, he is probably very good with it." If you have the 18 - 55 it is really a great lens. You can go a long way with it. |
|
Quoted:
So what lenses should I look at getting? We take pics of landscapes and animals, I wouldn't mind being able to do video with it, but as for now I only have the lens that came with it. Budget? That's important. Don't overlook refurbished or used lenses if you're cheap like me. Landscape - Tokina 11-16 f2.8. Out of production. Available at the usual outlets used. You'll need to learn post processing to make this lens work at it's full potential. It's a very good lens for shooting wide. Get the Nikon 35mm f1.8 DX prime. $200 new. $125 used. It's a stellar lens. Animals? I'm guessing the kool kids will suggest the Nikon 70-300 FX VR zoom. |
| I don't really have a budget. It just seems when I want to take a pic I cant get close enough and when I try the zoom doesn't help much. A friend said a 50mm would be nice, and a wide angle lens and I would almost have what I would need. I check craigslist all the time and b&H and adorama for used stuff but I notice the big zoom in lens are expensive, and it sucks I have a lot of birds around me but can't get close enough. I was thinking about getting the wifi adapter so I can set my camera up and take pics from my phone since I cant get close to the animals I can just leave the camera there and snap shots when they show up. |
|
Quoted:
I don't really have a budget. It just seems when I want to take a pic I cant get close enough and when I try the zoom doesn't help much. A friend said a 50mm would be nice, and a wide angle lens and I would almost have what I would need. I check craigslist all the time and b&H and adorama for used stuff but I notice the big zoom in lens are expensive, and it sucks I have a lot of birds around me but can't get close enough. I was thinking about getting the wifi adapter so I can set my camera up and take pics from my phone since I cant get close to the animals I can just leave the camera there and snap shots when they show up. There's never an end to the "can't get close enough" even with monster zooms. You will always need to get closer. My 80-400 has a field of view equivalent to that of a 600mm lens, and it still is barely useful on anything smaller than a duck at any more than about 10 feet away or so. Of course the bigger your target, the farther away you can be from it. 4 feet from a hummingbird doesn't even fill a quarter of the frame. 
|
The kool kids will bring their wrath upon me for this. 
Back when I was poor I bought this lens for my D3100. It has good image quality but it's slow to focus. It's hard to beat at $199 http://www.adorama.com/nk55300vrr.html If you can scrape up a few more bucks this is the lens the kool kids approve of. Nikon 70-300mm VR FX lens. In hindsight this is the lens I should have bought years ago. It will work great on your D3200 and it will go with you if you go to an FX camera in the future. http://www.adorama.com/us%20%20%20%20815905.html |
|
Quoted:
There's never an end to the "can't get close enough" even with monster zooms. You will always need to get closer. My 80-400 has a field of view equivalent to that of a 600mm lens, and it still is barely useful on anything smaller than a duck at any more than about 10 feet away or so. Of course the bigger your target, the farther away you can be from it. 4 feet from a hummingbird doesn't even fill a quarter of the frame. Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't really have a budget. It just seems when I want to take a pic I cant get close enough and when I try the zoom doesn't help much. A friend said a 50mm would be nice, and a wide angle lens and I would almost have what I would need. I check craigslist all the time and b&H and adorama for used stuff but I notice the big zoom in lens are expensive, and it sucks I have a lot of birds around me but can't get close enough. I was thinking about getting the wifi adapter so I can set my camera up and take pics from my phone since I cant get close to the animals I can just leave the camera there and snap shots when they show up. There's never an end to the "can't get close enough" even with monster zooms. You will always need to get closer. My 80-400 has a field of view equivalent to that of a 600mm lens, and it still is barely useful on anything smaller than a duck at any more than about 10 feet away or so. Of course the bigger your target, the farther away you can be from it. 4 feet from a hummingbird doesn't even fill a quarter of the frame. As the old adage of Robert Kapa goes, "If your picture is not good enough, you're not close enough". 
|
|
Quoted:
Budget? That's important. Don't overlook refurbished or used lenses if you're cheap like me. Landscape - Tokina 11-16 f2.8. Out of production. Available at the usual outlets used. You'll need to learn post processing to make this lens work at it's full potential. It's a very good lens for shooting wide. Get the Nikon 35mm f1.8 DX prime. $200 new. $125 used. It's a stellar lens. Animals? I'm guessing the kool kids will suggest the Nikon 70-300 FX VR zoom. Quoted:
Quoted:
So what lenses should I look at getting? We take pics of landscapes and animals, I wouldn't mind being able to do video with it, but as for now I only have the lens that came with it. Budget? That's important. Don't overlook refurbished or used lenses if you're cheap like me. Landscape - Tokina 11-16 f2.8. Out of production. Available at the usual outlets used. You'll need to learn post processing to make this lens work at it's full potential. It's a very good lens for shooting wide. Get the Nikon 35mm f1.8 DX prime. $200 new. $125 used. It's a stellar lens. Animals? I'm guessing the kool kids will suggest the Nikon 70-300 FX VR zoom. The Tokina 11-16 is still in production and is a fine wide lens. It's been updated and now has an internal motor. I'll second the 35 prime. And the 70-300 is not a bad zoom, even if it's a lower-end zoom. |
|
If you don't mind manual focus, you can get a good, used 70-300mm for under a $100 from KEH, Adorama, etc... A used Nikon 50mm F/1.8 prime manual focus can be had for under $100. Auto focus can be found used for Under $150. New Yongnuo 50mm F/1.8 auto focus for under $90 Yongnuo just introduced a 35mm F/2 lens, with auto focus motor, for under $100. |
|
Quoted:
If you can scrape up a few more bucks this is the lens the kool kids approve of. Nikon 70-300mm VR FX lens. In hindsight this is the lens I should have bought years ago. It will work great on your D3200 and it will go with you if you go to an FX camera in the future. http://www.adorama.com/us%20%20%20%20815905.html I have a D5200. It was my first step into a digital SLR from a point and shoot sony. It came with a 18-55mm. I was also soon wanting to reach out farther so I could shoot wildlife and my daughters sporting events. I bought the lens above. It is all I need at this point. I quickly learned I need to master the camera first before spending a shit ton on lenses. When i first started shooting with the 70-300mm I was like wow this is so much better I am a photographer now. I sat down with a friend who is well experienced in photography and quickly learned i didn't know carp. I would take a few shots and then he would with my camera, the difference when you know what your doing is amazing. Basically what I am getting at is you need to learn the camera and basic photography before the lens. There is no since in spending the money if you dont know how to use it properly. I joined a local photo club in town that my friend suggested and they are all very helpful in giving tips on how to shoot and that is the key in getting what you want out of your camera. |
|
Quoted: So this one, https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/479252-DEMO/Nikon_1928_Zoom_Telephoto_AF_Zoom.html or this one is there a difference? https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/549301-REG/Sigma_5A9306_70_300mm_f_4_5_6_DG_Macro.html The Sigma has the auto focus motor built into the lens. Pull up reviews on each to see what the difference is between the two as far as glass quality goes. |
|
Quoted:
So this one, https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/479252-DEMO/Nikon_1928_Zoom_Telephoto_AF_Zoom.html or this one is there a difference? https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/549301-REG/Sigma_5A9306_70_300mm_f_4_5_6_DG_Macro.html That Nikon lens ($110-ish) is the one Nikon that is of poor quality. The Nikon 70-300mm that you want is the VR version ($550-ish). Great lens for the price. As noted, your D3200 needs a focus motor in the lens "AF-S". Either of the Nikon 70-300mm VR or the Sigma 70-300mm would be great additions to your kit, assuming the lens you have is one of the 18-xx kit lenses. That kit lens will work very well for your landscape needs since landscapes are normally in the f/8 to f/16 range, which includes the sweet spot for these lenses. |
|
Quoted:
the problem is we measure our images against what we see others do,but most shooters don't have the marketplace to justify 25k in hardware You could say this about anything though. Most drivers can't justify anything more than a $15K Kia for DD, most firearms enthusiasts can't justify half the crazy stuff they do, etc. I personally enjoy the tech part of photography as well as the actual act of taking pictures. A nicer camera will give you a higher degree of usable images, but won't necessarily make them "better images". I really quick and accurate AF system could be the difference between a great shot and a useless shot, just as high DR will allow you to recover more details in post. A larger buffer and FPS will give you more images to choose from when shooting action, and as an example might allow you to capture the bullet coming out of the ejection port much easier, etc. Obviously composition translates across any camera, and is completely necessary to learn if you want to pursue the hobby. I've seen people that have produced better images than a lot of my stuff with a 10 year old point and shoot, just because they understood composition and how to manipulate natural light onto the subject. Gear won't make you a better photographer, but if it will get you out there shooting more pictures it is worth it in that sense. |
| I owned a D3200 and it is capable of taking great photographs. The lenses are your most important investment. If you want to grow into a better camera in the future start looking at FX or full frame lenses, then you will not be stuck with a bunch of DX lenses that do not work on the higher end FX cameras. I really like the Nikon 1.8G Primes. The 50 1.8G is a great bargain at about $200. This lens will give you capabilities that an inexpensive zoom can't, low light performance and shallower depth of field. The other option although it is DX is the 35MM Prime, which is fantastic on DX cameras. |
|
If you're looking at 70-300 lenses for Nikon, give a hard look at these from KEH:
https://www.keh.com/shop/nikon-nikkor-70-300mm-f-4-5-5-6g-ed-if-af-s-vr-telephoto-zoom-lens.html I've got one, and it's a pretty good lens. I still use it, but my lust for more reach led me to the Tamron 150-600, at about 3x the price.  DSCN2043-D7100_Tamron600 by FredMan, on Flickr
|
|
Quoted:
I've got one, and it's a pretty good lens. I still use it, but my lust for more reach led me to the Tamron 150-600, at about 3x the price. <a href="https://flic.kr/p/CFrLHV" target="_blank">https://c8.staticflickr.com/2/1692/24075215239_9538c0f3eb_c.jpg</a>DSCN2043-D7100_Tamron600 by FredMan, on Flickr FWIW Tamron just released a new version of the Tamzooka. Tamron SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD G2 Lens I wish I had more money in the slush fund. I'd get the Tamzooka. |
|
Quoted:
FWIW Tamron just released a new version of the Tamzooka. Tamron SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD G2 Lens I wish I had more money in the slush fund. I'd get the Tamzooka. Quoted:
Quoted:
I've got one, and it's a pretty good lens. I still use it, but my lust for more reach led me to the Tamron 150-600, at about 3x the price. <a href="https://flic.kr/p/CFrLHV" target="_blank">https://c8.staticflickr.com/2/1692/24075215239_9538c0f3eb_c.jpg</a>DSCN2043-D7100_Tamron600 by FredMan, on Flickr FWIW Tamron just released a new version of the Tamzooka. Tamron SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD G2 Lens I wish I had more money in the slush fund. I'd get the Tamzooka. Nice list of features. I wonder if it looks like the lens is covered in vaseline when you take a pic at the long end.
|
|
Talk about a left turn
I'm getting a Sigma 17-50 2.8 next week. It's a well regarded lens. When I get it I'll report on it. If the OP can scrape up $399 it would be an excellent choice for a D3200. http://www.adorama.com/sg1750eos.html |
|
Quoted:
Talk about a left turn
I'm getting a Sigma 17-50 2.8 next week. It's a well regarded lens. When I get it I'll report on it. If the OP can scrape up $399 it would be an excellent choice for a D3200. http://www.adorama.com/sg1750eos.html I can but I will search to see pictures from the lenses. |