D7100 "too much" camera to start with?

[panthers65]

I think several people have now given very good reasons to get the D7100 if money is not a problem. It can be just as automatic as any of the lower end models, but will allow more advanced use as and when required. You will never be wondering "will my D7100 support that feature?". I bought my wife a D300 5 years ago and she gravitated to it from a point and shoot. Even though she recently bought a D7100 because she wanted a new sensor, the D300 is still there and proved to be a good investment because it never limited her.

A big thing to consider is the better autofocus on the D7100. It's very quick, even in low light. I had a D600 and it's much better than that camera which is supposed to be a level up.

Unless you have a very large house, 50mm on a DX will be a pain as it's too close. Even the 35mm can feel tight indoors on occasion if the kids are running around. I would suggest an 18-105. You can get a fast third party (sigma or Tamron) 17-50 lenses which are nice but a bit more or the Nikon 18-200 if you really want flexibility. 90% of my wife's photos have been with the 18-200. The 105 is not much more expensive than a 50mm and you can buy the body and 105 kit cheaper.

The final consideration is a flash. As my D7100/18-105 kit suggestion is within the original budget, a SB700 flash will turn your indoor snaps into much more pro looking images as you can bounce the light off wall and ceilings. Maybe that's stage two, but keep it in mind.

Yep, I went to bed last night pretty much decided on a 3XXX or 5XXX model, then I wake up this morning and I'm back leaning towards a 7XXX model with the new posts. Adorama is got a deal on a refurbished D7000 back between $570 and $640. I missed the $570 deal this morning, but if it pops back up again, That might be too good a deal to pass up.

I think she will be focusing on portraits and closer shots right off the bad. the 18-200 may be a better starting point than the 50/1.8. I'll have to talk to her about it.

 

[panthers65]

In lieu of an exposure book:
Exposure | Understanding Exposure - ISO, Aperture and Shutter Speed Explained
Aperture, Shutter Speed, ISO, & Light Explained-Understanding Exposure & Camera Settings - YouTube

Thanks for the great links, I've read through them and they are very simple and straight forward. I'll definitely be signing her up for the afternoon class I found and getting her several books.

 

[ShootRaw]

Im gonna give it to you strait..If you are set on a zoom...Get a fast zoom..You will thank me later...Primes are super sharp and fast...The 50mm 1.8g is $220 and sharp...
The 85mm 1.8g is the sharpest portrait lens(prime) you can get $500...The best zoom is the Tamron 70-200mm 2.8 $1500..Dont waste your $ on variable aperture glass...You will thank me later...Whether if you get the D5300,D7000, or D7100 you will be happy...Hope this helps.

 

[panthers65]

Im gonna give it to you strait..If you are set on a zoom...Get a fast zoom..You will thank me later...Primes are super sharp and fast...The 50mm 1.8g is $220 and sharp...
The 85mm 1.8g is the sharpest portrait lens(prime) you can get $500...The best zoom is the Tamron 70-200mm 2.8 $1500..Dont waste your $ on variable aperture glass...You will thank me later...Whether if you get the D5300,D7000, or D7100 you will be happy...Hope this helps.

Thanks, it might have been the 50mm I was thinking of, not the 35mm, that does seem more familiar. Also one of the reasons I was looking at the 7XXX series originally instead of the 5XXX or 3XXX series. 50mm/1.8 AF = $110, 50mm/1.8 AF-S = $220. I would assume other lenses she purchases will be the same.

I would think a zoom would just complicate things as she's trying to learn. Maybe something she can look into after Christmas/next spring.

 

[WayneF]

I would think a zoom would just complicate things as she's trying to learn. Maybe something she can look into after Christmas/next spring.

I worry about this. She's gonna be pissed when she learns enough to know the poor way you set her up.

Do you have a DX camera now? Do you know the significance of a 50mm on a DX camera? Have you ever used one? You should go to a camera store and look through one, and examine what the zoom lens does. Notice what the viewfinder shows when zoomed to 50 mm, and contemplate that view as the only picture choice available. Compare it to when zoomed out to wide angle. Isn't wide angle nice?

I don't mean to meddle, but I fear this notion suggests you may have been listening to some really poor advice. A 50 mm lens on DX is a modest telephoto lens. On DX, it would only see a field width of about 3 feet if from a 7 foot distance. A two person subject on a couch probably could not scrunch quite that close together. You would have to stand back about 14 feet to include the full couch width (many rooms are not that large). This would prevent most general purpose usage, the view is not wide enough. It would make many things impossible. Many things indoors needs wide angle, not telephoto. A head and shoulder portrait might be an exception, since that is hardly a wide view. 50mm may have uses, but it seems a poor choice for the only lens.

Say you go on vacation and see Notre Dame catheral in Paris. If you had a 18mm zoom, you could stand across the street and get much of the front of the building in the picture. With 50mm, maybe you can get the front door. It's good to have choices.

So of course, a zoom can provide it all, ready for anything. This is why the kit lenses are like 18 to 55 mm, easily adjustable from wide angle to mild telephoto. This is why they are so overwhelmingly popular. The idea is to be generally useful. Choices are always very powerful.

I hope you give this aspect a little more thought. When you can have a few lenses, that is when you can specialize on some of them.

 

[Don Kuykendall_RIP]

I second WayneF IF you only have one lens it needs to be the 18-105 zoom. It is a quality lens and gives you a lot of options where the 50 or 35 will limit you. Yes they are great lenses but not as the primary first lens from a beginning photographer.

 

[nickt]

18-105 is a great value and versatile. After using that for awhile, she can pick a 50 or a 35 if she needs a prime. No VR on that 50mm 1.8 af either. No confusion using a zoom, just fun.

 

[john*thomas]

I was able to buy my 5100 with a 18-55 lens refurbished for $400. If I had to do it all over again I would likely do the same because I'm a bit of a tightwad. LOL (I have since bought a lightly used 55-200)

That said, from using my 5100 and reading those suggesting the 7100, I can see if the money part isn't a problem, your wife likely would like the 7100 better. Now if it's all you've used it's all you know but when I was reading up before purchasing I did read where the 5100 was a little weak in low light. Sounds like the 7100 is better there and I can say that the 5100 could be better.

The two memory slots is something I would like to have as well as the wifi. I myself wouldn't upgrade for the zoom motor as I shoot in manual mode as often as automatic anyway. But, if I was looking for a camera for my wife, I would look to the better working automatic features.

Right now I could still sell my 5100 on eBay for $400 so that is a major positive.

 

[Don Kuykendall_RIP]

You are in Atlanta so go take your wife to a camera store that has both the D5100 and the D7100 and let her see and feel the difference. You need to get what she is comfortable with learning.

 

[Moab Man]

This would be my approach. Start out with a less expensive camera (D3100, 3200, 5100) and a good lens or two - small investment. Then if in a year the bug is still there jump up to a big investment like the D7100. All of the lenses will roll right over.

I suggest this using my wife and I as the examples. When I started out I was using a D5100 and truly enjoying myself. My wife told me she wanted to get a camera and do photography with me. I bought her a D5100, some lenses, and let her go hog wild on filters and stuff. We went on photography trips and had a blast. By about the three month point she started to fizzle and she now picks up her camera every couple of months in a moment of photography excitement like today. Then, she doesn't get around to editing them or doing anything with them.

I am not upset that I spent the money, but I can't imagine how many times this senario has played out but with much larger investments. At one point I almost coughed up the money to buy her a D7100 or maybe even the mythical D400 if it would have ever materialized. In hindsight I am so happy that it is just the cost of a D5100 sitting in that camera bag in the corner and not a far greater investment.

If this had played out differently I would gladly buy her a D7100 or the mythical D400 tomorrow. And I still would have felt like it was a smart purchase to try out the smaller training wheels for a year before buying the big bike. Besides, having two cameras is not a bad thing.

Don't get me wrong, my wife enjoys her camera, but she came to the decision on her own that it didn't make sense to make a huge camera investment for what her use level is now that some time has passed.

That's my two cents.

 

[panthers65]

I worry about this. She's gonna be pissed when she learns enough to know the poor way you set her up. Do you have a DX camera now? Do you know the significance of a 50mm on a DX camera? Have you ever used one? You should go to a camera store and look through one, and examine what the zoom lens does. Notice what the viewfinder shows when zoomed to 50 mm, and contemplate that view as the only picture choice available. Compare it to when zoomed out to wide angle. Isn't wide angle nice? I don't mean to meddle, but I fear this notion suggests you may have been listening to some really poor advice. A 50 mm lens on DX is a modest telephoto lens. On DX, it would only see a field width of about 3 feet if from a 7 foot distance. A two person subject on a couch probably could not scrunch quite that close together. You would have to stand back about 14 feet to include the full couch width (many rooms are not that large). This would prevent most general purpose usage, the view is not wide enough. It would make many things impossible. Many things indoors needs wide angle, not telephoto. A head and shoulder portrait might be an exception, since that is hardly a wide view. 50mm may have uses, but it seems a poor choice for the only lens. Say you go on vacation and see Notre Dame catheral in Paris. If you had a 18mm zoom, you could stand across the street and get much of the front of the building in the picture. With 50mm, maybe you can get the front door. It's good to have choices. So of course, a zoom can provide it all, ready for anything. This is why the kit lenses are like 18 to 55 mm, easily adjustable from wide angle to mild telephoto. This is why they are so overwhelmingly popular. The idea is to be generally useful. Choices are always very powerful. I hope you give this aspect a little more thought. When you can have a few lenses, that is when you can specialize on some of them.

Definitely not meddling/pushing. I've been very clear I know nothing about cameras in general, much less about the way the zooms/lens work and what-not. I just really started watching them about 2 weeks ago and actually learning about the maybe a week to a week and a half ago. I've been to target and picked them up, and it took me 10 minutes to figure out how to turn them on and get out of all the menu stuff so I could actually look through them.... lol

Truthfully, I thought the 50mm was related to the width or aspect ratio, not the magnification. I had gotten that recommendation from our wedding photographer who I became friends with after. He said the 50mm 1.8 and the Tamrom 18-270 were his two favorite lenses. Stupid me didn't ask him to explain why or what that meant, I just started writing down numbers and plugging them into google... I picked the 50mm 1.8 because I thought it would be a more simple lens to start with since it wasn't a zoom lens (and probably subconsciously because I'm a cheap-skate and it was the cheaper of the two). Thanks for clearing that up. I don't know about dropping $4-500 on the 18-270 right off the bat, I'll look more into the 18-105 for starters and let her upgrade as she needs it....

 

[panthers65]

..

Thanks, This is my push to find something that I know I could sell for a similar price if she doesn't take to it. This is why I'd be happier buying a more expensive camera that I got a good deal on than buying a cheaper camera at retail. If I can pick up a D7000 for $600, chances are I won't be loosing much, if any money on it if/when I go to sell it. Where-as if I buy a $800 D5300 brand new, I"ll be lucky to get $5-600 for it in a year if she never really gets too into it.

 

[WayneF]

Truthfully, I thought the 50mm was related to the width or aspect ratio, not the magnification. I had gotten that recommendation from our wedding photographer who I became friends with after. He said the 50mm 1.8 and the Tamrom 18-270 were his two favorite lenses. Stupid me didn't ask him to explain why or what that meant, I just started writing down numbers and plugging them into google... I picked the 50mm 1.8 because I thought it would be a more simple lens to start with since it wasn't a zoom lens (and probably subconsciously because I'm a cheap-skate and it was the cheaper of the two). Thanks for clearing that up. I don't know about dropping $4-500 on the 18-270 right off the bat, I'll look more into the 18-105 for starters and let her upgrade as she needs it....

If you also had a zoom lens, then you would be covered, and I withdraw all objections to also having a 50mm, as you see fit. The zoom will also do 50mm, but the downside of the zoom is that it is not a f/1.8 lens. f/1.8 might be useful a time or two in its life, but the 50mm lens cannot do 18mm wide angle nor telephoto. Which you will need much more.

Expensive zoom lens might be f/2.8, but less expensive ones might be f/4, and worse, when zoomed longer, cheap ones might be only f/5.6. That is not great either, not in dim light, not with flash, but it is little issue in the sun. In shade though, it shows up, and lengthens shutter speeds. So a f/5.6 zoom is not great either.

The real advantage of the f/1.8 or f/2.8 lens is that they should perform very well at a useful f/4 (like with flash) where the f/4 lens would be wide open then (not a good thing). And a f/5.6 lens cannot even do f/4 (but most flash pictures will not be telephoto).

But the main point was, it would be extremely limiting to have only a 50 mm lens... esp on DX, where it acts like a 75mm telephoto on FX or 35 mm film.

Get a zoom lens first, and then contemplate the 50mm in the spring or whenever. Have a reason to need it first.

Go back to the store, and play with the zoom lens a bit. Zoom to one end, and the other end, and to points in between, and see the view it offers in the viewfinder (which will be the same view your picture shows of course). Understand the versatility it offers, in one lens. My opinion is she cannot do without it.

This may be a complication to mention at this point, but FWIW, you can also see this zoom effect on any picture in your photo editor. As you "zoom in" on that picture, it increases magnification, which necessarily crops to reduce the width it can show in the same borders when enlarged. Same thing as zooming focal length magnifies the view in your camera frame borders. Except cropping afterwards discards pixels, where zooming in the camera keeps more pixels (which is more detail).

As to the picture you take... speaking of of the width of the field of view:

An 18 mm lens on DX will capture a horizontal view about 66 degrees wide (roughly 2/3 of a 90 degree angle)
30mm lens on DX about 45 degrees wide (half of a 90 degree angle)
50mm on DX about 26 degrees (roughly 1/3 of a 90 degree angle)
200mm lens on DX about 7 degrees wide.

Doubling focal length is 2x magnification which cuts the picture width in half.

So, you adjust the zoom lens to show the picture view that you want to capture. It is an extremely strong tool to get the picture you want. Or, less convenient, but you could instead swap the lens to another one of a different focal length, if you had one. If your only lens is a 50mm, then you don't.

One more caution... just to complicate things.

If some hypothetical zoom has say a 20-60mm range, that is called a 3x zoom (60/20).

If it has a 20-120mm range, then 6x.

If it has a 20-300mm range, then 15x.

These large x values seriously complicate good lens design, having to do all things at once. This is one advantage of the prime lens, say 50mm (prime design only worries with that one focal length). But it can only do the one.
When the zoom lens design passes about 6x, then image quality and sharpness suffers a bit. So this again is a trade off, convenience of 10x or 15x in one lens, or the most perfect precise results possible in a lens of less range.

For example, the 18-200 zoom was not Nikons best lens. This extreme 11x zoom design "loss" is less important if you only show it small, resampled screen images or print only 4x6 inches.
But if you view it large (cropped or printed), then we need all the sharpness we can get.

 

[Don Kuykendall_RIP]

This might help you understand zoom lenses and focal lengths a little better

http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Learn-And-Explore/Article/g3cu6o2o/understanding-focal-length.html

​

 

[panthers65]

.

Awesome information, Thank you very much for it. I'm a physics/number guy, breaking it down like that makes it much easier to understand.

One quick question, I went back and referenced the links posted earlier in this thread about the basics of exposure. The f/1.8, f/2.8, f/4, ect... numbers on the lenses is referencing the Aperture, correct?

If so, how does this number on the lens affect the pictures (and by how I'm reading your replay, lower=better) affect the picture quality itself? From the article at an (extremely) high-level, it seems with f/X as X increases the backgroud of the image becomes cleaner as less light is let into the lens. So the f/X rating on the lens amplifies the setting in the camera, or are these two completely different numbers?

Edit: nevermind, found a page that explained how the Aperture results in a softer background, Thanks for pointing me on the right track.

 

[WayneF]

Awesome information, Thank you very much for it. I'm a physics/number guy, breaking it down like that makes it much easier to understand.

One quick question, I went back and referenced the links posted earlier in this thread about the basics of exposure. The f/1.8, f/2.8, f/4, ect... numbers on the lenses is referencing the Aperture, correct?

If so, how does this number on the lens affect the pictures (and by how I'm reading your replay, lower=better) affect the picture quality itself? From the article at an (extremely) high-level, it seems with f/X as X increases the backgroud of the image becomes cleaner as less light is let into the lens. So the f/X rating on the lens amplifies the setting in the camera, or are these two completely different numbers?

f/stop is about the diameter of the lens aperture. f/stop number = focal length / aperture diameter.
This is why f/4 on one lens can be same exposure as f/4 on a radically different lens, more or less.

Primarily, a more wide open aperture (a lower f/number) increases the amount of light it passes (the exposure). Like opening a window blind. One f/stop step is 2x the light. See Photographic Tables, F/stop, Shutter Speed, ISO and EV about the definition of the numbers.

Secondarily, as we stop down (larger f/number) we increase the zone of sharpness of focus, called depth of field. We still have to tend to exposure however. And there is a practical limit to how much we can stop down. Stopping down in any degree causes more diffraction (Airy disk formula for example), but with a DX camera, if we pass f/11, it starts being a practical limit, sharpness suffers, so we avoid that without good reason.

As to choosing a zoom lens with certain apertures.

Some inexpensive zoom lenses show two specification, like Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor lens. It is a $100 lens (we can pay $1900 for a 24/70 f/2.8 lens). The two numbers means it is a f/3.5 mm lens at 18mm, and a f/5.6 lens at 55mm, and intermediate maximums in between. Maximum changes as we zoom focal length (f/stop = FL / diameter).

Other better lens are constructed with fixed maximum aperture.


For outdoors, your wife will learn about the Sunny 16 rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, as being typical exposures in bright sun, hazy sun, overcast, etc. No issues with a f/5.6 lens in bright sun, but overcast and shade means we have to open more, and a f/5.6 lens becomes very wide open then (always best to stop down a stop or two, but not always possible).

Worse, flash inside is best as bounce flash, flash aimed at ceiling, but it takes a lot of flash power, and about ISO 400 f/4 becomes a common exposure. If a f/2.8 lens, f/4 is no big deal. If a f/4 lens, it is wide open (not best).

 

[panthers65]

So say I wanted to take a low light picture of a still subject with a large depth of field, I would want a smaller aperture(ie f/6) and slower shutter speed.

However, if the subject was moving and I couldn't increase the light, the slower shutter speed would result in blur. So I would have to increase the shutter speed to allow more light in, and increase the ISO to a point right before the picture has noise, which is limited by the technology/performance in my camera.

Changing again, if I wanted a softer background in the same situation as above: I would increase my aperture(ie f/1.8), which would allow me to increase my shutter speed and lower my ISO number for a less noisy image?

 

[WayneF]

So say I wanted to take a low light picture of a still subject with a large depth of field, I would want a smaller aperture and slower shutter speed.

Yes, low light normally considers a larger aperture, but more depth of field is a smaller aperture diameter, which is a larger f/stop number. It is confusing when you stop to think or talk, but it becomes second nature on the camera, thinking not necessary.

However, if the subject was moving and I couldn't increase the light, the slower shutter speed would result in blur. So I would have to decrease the shutter speed to allow more light in, and increase the ISO to a point right before the picture has noise, which is limited by the technology/performance in my camera.

OK, but you would try other alternatives than slower shutter speed if concerned with stopping motion.

You get more ambient exposure with slower shutter speed, or larger aperture diameter (smaller number), or higher ISO, or possibly combining all of them.

Or if ambient light is dim, you can use flash. The camera flashes are called speedlights because they are our best tool for stopping motion (in dim places). Their flash (at low power) can be extremely brief, to stop hummingbird wings, which simulates shutter speed if the ambient is dim (so ambient does not continue to blur it).

Sensor noise is not a step function, it gradually increases. Where you say Ouch might be a step.

Changing again, if I wanted a softer background in the same situation as above: I would increase my aperture, which would allow me to increase my shutter speed and lower my ISO number for a less noisy image?

Yes, if all things equal.

 

[panthers65]

OK, but you would try other alternatives than slower shutter speed if concerned with stopping motion.

You get more ambient exposure with slower shutter speed, or larger aperture diameter (smaller number), or higher ISO, or possibly combining all of them.

Or if ambient light is dim, you can use flash. The camera flashes are called speedlights because they are our best tool for stopping motion (in dim places). Their flash (at low power) can be extremely brief, to stop hummingbird wings, which simulates shutter speed if the ambient is dim (so ambient does not continue to blur it).

Ahh, your right, very confusing to talk about. I meant I would have to increase my shutter speed since the subject is now moving, and therefor increase my ISO to compensate for less light entering the camera.

 

[Horoscope Fish]

Yes, low light normally considers a larger aperture, but more depth of field is a smaller aperture diameter, which is a larger f/stop number. It is confusing when you stop to think or talk, but it becomes second nature on the camera, thinking not necessary.

To minimize that confusion I always tell people new to photography that both shutter speed AND aperture numbers are fractions; hence 1/8th (f/8) is a larger slice of the "light pie" than 1/22nd (f/22) is. Obviously, there are differences in that each stop doubles, or halves, the amount of light but using the fractions approach gets them over the Hump of Confusion of big numbers meaning less light. Exactly how *much* light we're talking is a detail that is subordinate to the greater concept of aperture numbers themselves and can be covered later.

.....