Newbie to Nikon

[dodger916]

Greetings all. My name is Frank. I live in Prescott AZ, having transplanted two years ago from upstate NY (Ithaca). My brother gave me a D3100 a couple of years ago, but I wasn't crazy about the resolution so I decided to buy a used D5500. So far I'm happy with it. I haven't been into any serious photography since the 1970s; my last camera was a Minolta SRT101. I took lots of pictures and developed B&W pics with a friend.

Now I'm retired and getting back into it, hence the purchase of the D5500. I've been exploring filter sets, not needing anything top-shelf. Suggestions would be appreciated.

Also, I've been considering using this camera for videos of my band, and am having real difficulty locating the EP-5A and EH-5A AC adapter. I found some 9v knock-offs, but I'd prefer to get the 7.2v. Some reviewers said the 9v models fried their cameras.

Thanks & regards,
Frank

 

[hark]

Greetings all. My name is Frank. I live in Prescott AZ, having transplanted two years ago from upstate NY (Ithaca). My brother gave me a D3100 a couple of years ago, but I wasn't crazy about the resolution so I decided to buy a used D5500. So far I'm happy with it. I haven't been into any serious photography since the 1970s; my last camera was a Minolta SRT101. I took lots of pictures and developed B&W pics with a friend.

Now I'm retired and getting back into it, hence the purchase of the D5500. I've been exploring filter sets, not needing anything top-shelf. Suggestions would be appreciated.

Also, I've been considering using this camera for videos of my band, and am having real difficulty locating the EP-5A and EH-5A AC adapter. I found some 9v knock-offs, but I'd prefer to get the 7.2v. Some reviewers said the 9v models fried their cameras.

Thanks & regards,
Frank

Hi and welcome to Nikonites. I have no clue about an AC adapter but maybe @FredKingston or @nickt can give you some info.

When you ask about filters, what kind? Neutral density, polarizing, something else?

 

[Clovishound]

Welcome. Unfortunately you joined at a time when the forum software has recently been changed/upgraded, so everyone is focused in on chasing bugs in the system, and learning a new way of navigating around the forum.

I'm a little more down the road of a similar situation. I was into film photography in the 70s through the 90s. When my daughter got interested in photography a few years ago, I got her a D3400 kit. When she got more interested, and I retired, I got her a D5600 kit and I took her old camera to use when we went on picture taking outings. I have since been re-bitten by the photography bug.

I find that filters are not needed nearly as much with digital as they were with film. I shoot in RAW and post process everything. You can make almost any color correction you can imagine after the fact. NDs and polarizers are still useful, and perhaps a graduated ND. YMMV

The other thing I would advise is to be careful about the filters you buy. A friend bought me a set of filters off Amazon for my new 200-500mm lens. I tried the UV to protect the lens when out and about. It degraded the image significantly. The filter material feels and sounds like plastic vs glass.

 

[Bikerbrent]

Welcome aboard, enjoy the ride. We look forward to seeing more posts and samples of your work.

 

[dodger916]

Hi and welcome to Nikonites. I have no clue about an AC adapter but maybe @FredKingston or @nickt can give you some info.

When you ask about filters, what kind? Neutral density, polarizing, something else?

Thanks, Hank. I was thinking of starting with polarizer (which I used quite a bit back in the day), UV and ND. I see some Opteka sets that are optical glass. B&H has K&F sets as well. I don't need anything too heroic, just some basics. Thanks again.

 

[dodger916]

Welcome. Unfortunately you joined at a time when the forum software has recently been changed/upgraded, so everyone is focused in on chasing bugs in the system, and learning a new way of navigating around the forum.

I'm a little more down the road of a similar situation. I was into film photography in the 70s through the 90s. When my daughter got interested in photography a few years ago, I got her a D3400 kit. When she got more interested, and I retired, I got her a D5600 kit and I took her old camera to use when we went on picture taking outings. I have since been re-bitten by the photography bug.

I find that filters are not needed nearly as much with digital as they were with film. I shoot in RAW and post process everything. You can make almost any color correction you can imagine after the fact. NDs and polarizers are still useful, and perhaps a graduated ND. YMMV

The other thing I would advise is to be careful about the filters you buy. A friend bought me a set of filters off Amazon for my new 200-500mm lens. I tried the UV to protect the lens when out and about. It degraded the image significantly. The filter material feels and sounds like plastic vs glass.

Thanks very much Clovishound. I was thinking of CPL, UV and graduated ND to get started. Thanks for the RAW tip. I was wondering about the differences. So I take it RAW provides more/easier editing options than JPEG? I've had this camera for a few days and have been shooting in JPEG. Guess I'll switch to RAW. Any disadvantages to RAW vs JPEG? Thanks.

 

[dodger916]

Welcome aboard, enjoy the ride. We look forward to seeing more posts and samples of your work.

Thanks, and will do!

 

[Marilynne]

Welcome!

 

[Needa]

Welcome! Please excuse our mess.

 

[Clovishound]

Well, there are several down sides to RAW. Bigger files is the first, although not such a big deal with high capacity cards these days, as well as faster processors in the cameras. The next is that you will have to convert to JPG for many applications, as things like posting will not support RAW files regardless of size. The other down side is that you will almost have to post process a RAW file image. They can be a little disappointingly flat right out of the camera. It normally takes very little to bring them to life. Warning, you will likely have to download and install a codex to get some programs, like Photo, to read the .NEX files that Nikon uses for their RAW files. It's a fairly easy one time install.

The upsides are substantial. It will give you the best quality. JPEG is a compression scheme, and results in some detail being lost. It is easier to make corrections. I find post processing to be easier in RAW. Edits are not destructive, ie many edits in JPEG overwrite the original info.

Bottom line is that it is almost universally advised to shoot in RAW.

If you don't currently post process, you are missing out on a lot in your photography IMO. I use Lightroom, but there are a lot of good free softwares out there. Nikon's NX Studio is one of them, and can be downloaded for free from their website.

My daughter and I took a small digital photography course offered locally. We learned a whole lot. She was a newbie, I had a pretty good handle on the basics of photography, but from the film era. I decided to take the course with her, but ended up learning a ton about the digital side of taking pictures. It was well worth the time and money spent on the course. You can probably find something that will fit your needs in your local area. Of course, there are lots of online options, if you are willing to do the research.

 

[dodger916]

Well, there are several down sides to RAW. Bigger files is the first, although not such a big deal with high capacity cards these days, as well as faster processors in the cameras. The next is that you will have to convert to JPG for many applications, as things like posting will not support RAW files regardless of size. The other down side is that you will almost have to post process a RAW file image. They can be a little disappointingly flat right out of the camera. It normally takes very little to bring them to life. Warning, you will likely have to download and install a codex to get some programs, like Photo, to read the .NEX files that Nikon uses for their RAW files. It's a fairly easy one time install.

The upsides are substantial. It will give you the best quality. JPEG is a compression scheme, and results in some detail being lost. It is easier to make corrections. I find post processing to be easier in RAW. Edits are not destructive, ie many edits in JPEG overwrite the original info.

Bottom line is that it is almost universally advised to shoot in RAW.

If you don't currently post process, you are missing out on a lot in your photography IMO. I use Lightroom, but there are a lot of good free softwares out there. Nikon's NX Studio is one of them, and can be downloaded for free from their website.

My daughter and I took a small digital photography course offered locally. We learned a whole lot. She was a newbie, I had a pretty good handle on the basics of photography, but from the film era. I decided to take the course with her, but ended up learning a ton about the digital side of taking pictures. It was well worth the time and money spent on the course. You can probably find something that will fit your needs in your local area. Of course, there are lots of online options, if you are willing to do the research.

Now that's what I call a helpful response! Thanks so much Clovishound.

 

[TwistedThrottle]

Hi and Welcome!
+1 for RAW over JPG.
Also, can't stress this enough- buy the best filters you can afford. Nothing you put in front of your lens will make the pictures sharper but the cheaper options will negatively impact your images more than the expensive ones. I have a UV filter on each of my lenses for protection and really like Breakthrough Photography. I try to get the X4 but they're hard to come by and the X2 is a good alt. The difference is the X4 is brass, made in Germany with 16 layers of coating, X2 is aluminum made in Japan with 8 layers of coating. I would not get the X1, I prefer multi coated filters. I also use Hoya NXT Plus filters which are also multicoated, about half way between the X2 and X4. Its good practice to invest in one filter at a time focusing on the best glass you can afford rather than getting a kit that has all the filters you need for one low price. I did that before and now they sit in the bottom of a drawer and never get used.

 

[BF Hammer]

Hi Frank, and welcome.
Clovis gave a good answer about RAW. I like to think of shooting JPEG as being like shooting Polaroids. You can take some nice photos, but you are limited on making adjustments with processing. RAW files are more like working with print negatives. You would not really show off your photos with the format, but you make a JPEG out of the RAW file as a last step in processing the image (a "print"). Also remember that JPEG is a format that compresses the image quality and loses data so each time you edit and resave, it becomes lower in quality.

I used to follow the old-fashioned thinking about putting a UV filter on every lens. I now have a pile of those filters I never use anymore. The camera sensor already has a UV filter in front of it, the filter on the lens can only degrade the image, not enhance. Just another surface area to catch dust. But I do have polarizers and a set of ND filters. Beyond those, most effects can be done with software and easily.

 

[dodger916]

Hi Frank, and welcome.
Clovis gave a good answer about RAW. I like to think of shooting JPEG as being like shooting Polaroids. You can take some nice photos, but you are limited on making adjustments with processing. RAW files are more like working with print negatives. You would not really show off your photos with the format, but you make a JPEG out of the RAW file as a last step in processing the image (a "print"). Also remember that JPEG is a format that compresses the image quality and loses data so each time you edit and resave, it becomes lower in quality.

I used to follow the old-fashioned thinking about putting a UV filter on every lens. I now have a pile of those filters I never use anymore. The camera sensor already has a UV filter in front of it, the filter on the lens can only degrade the image, not enhance. Just another surface area to catch dust. But I do have polarizers and a set of ND filters. Beyond those, most effects can be done with software and easily.

Thanks very much! Great info. I'm getting a polarizer for sure, and have been looking into ND filters, both graduated and singles. It seems there may be some inherent deficiencies with some graduated filters. Twisted Throttle suggested Breakthrough Photography products. Any opinions on graduated vs singles?

Thanks again.
Frank

 

[dodger916]

Hi and Welcome!
+1 for RAW over JPG.
Also, can't stress this enough- buy the best filters you can afford. Nothing you put in front of your lens will make the pictures sharper but the cheaper options will negatively impact your images more than the expensive ones. I have a UV filter on each of my lenses for protection and really like Breakthrough Photography. I try to get the X4 but they're hard to come by and the X2 is a good alt. The difference is the X4 is brass, made in Germany with 16 layers of coating, X2 is aluminum made in Japan with 8 layers of coating. I would not get the X1, I prefer multi coated filters. I also use Hoya NXT Plus filters which are also multicoated, about half way between the X2 and X4. Its good practice to invest in one filter at a time focusing on the best glass you can afford rather than getting a kit that has all the filters you need for one low price. I did that before and now they sit in the bottom of a drawer and never get used.

Thanks very much for the advice. I was most interested in their 6-stop X4, but it is back-ordered. The 3-stop and 10-stop are in stock. Any advice about which one to get? Thanks again. Frank
p.s. is Twisted Throttle a motorcycle reference? I own several bikes.

 

[Clovishound]

A lot depends on what you shoot and how you shoot it. I have seldom seen a need for an ND. I have always been able to get what I want by using smaller F stops. Of course, the limitation of that is that you are stuck with a wider depth of field, which for most pictures I want a long shutter speed, that works well. I would advise to get equipment based on a recognized need, rather than because you just want more tools in your box, or feel you "ought" to have one.

I'm old school, so the graduated ND would be the first thing I would have thought of. After working with some sunrise on a beach photos where I didn't have that filter available, I found that I could obtain the same results without resorting to another piece of glass between the subject and sensor.

For example, a graduated ND is often used to balance sky and foreground. Before buying an expensive piece of kit and spending the time installing, uninstalling, and adjusting it for each use, try either post processing using a mask, adjusting shadow and highlight levels, or alternately bracketing several photos and merging them into an HDR. Digital photos often have a great deal of latitude in their original files.

This is a picture that had an overexposed sky, and very little detail in the underexposed trees, and root balls. I created several masks and increased saturation and decreased exposure in the sky and then brought out detail in the shadows of the tree and root balls. A graduated ND filter would have done the same thing in camera, but would have resulted in the section of the tree that was above the horizon being underexposed. Leaving me with similar problems. Perhaps the issues using a graduated filter would have been less than the straight photo, but I suspect the end result would have been very similar.

Bottom line is that everyone must find their own style of taking pictures. It is not, and should not be the same for everyone. If it were there would be little diversity in the photos you see. The trick is to find the techniques and tools that will allow you to take the pictures you want. These tools and techniques will be different from photographer to photographer.

 

[hark]

Thanks very much! Great info. I'm getting a polarizer for sure, and have been looking into ND filters, both graduated and singles. It seems there may be some inherent deficiencies with some graduated filters. Twisted Throttle suggested Breakthrough Photography products. Any opinions on graduated vs singles?

Thanks again.
Frank

Frank, when you say graduated, do you really mean graduated or do you mean variable? They are two different things.

I have a variable ND filter - this one by Tiffen. If you are interested in this variable ND filter, keep watch for Black Friday. B&H puts it on sale periodically. I paid $69.95, and it had a $20 mail-in rebate on top of the sale price. So the cost was $49.95. All variable ND filters require being watched. If you rotate the glass beyond the 10-stop mark, you will get a big X across your image.

The Breakthrough Photography single ND filters are excellent. Initially I purchased the less expensive ones until @TwistedThrottle said the more expensive ones use a brass mount (and I've had issues with non-brass mounts not coming off so well). So I returned what I bought and replaced it with the more expensive one.

Lastly, graduated ND filters are darker at the top and clear at the bottom (but maybe you already know that). Good luck with whatever you decide to get.

 

[dodger916]

Frank, when you say graduated, do you really mean graduated or do you mean variable? They are two different things.

I have a variable ND filter - this one by Tiffen. If you are interested in this variable ND filter, keep watch for Black Friday. B&H puts it on sale periodically. I paid $69.95, and it had a $20 mail-in rebate on top of the sale price. So the cost was $49.95. All variable ND filters require being watched. If you rotate the glass beyond the 10-stop mark, you will get a big X across your image.

The Breakthrough Photography single ND filters are excellent. Initially I purchased the less expensive ones until @TwistedThrottle said the more expensive ones use a brass mount (and I've had issues with non-brass mounts not coming off so well). So I returned what I bought and replaced it with the more expensive one.

Lastly, graduated ND filters are darker at the top and clear at the bottom (but maybe you already know that). Good luck with whatever you decide to get.

I meant variable! Just learned the difference; still learning the lingo. Thanks for clarifying. I've been reading some articles, and the Tiffen 52mm is extremely attractive. I'll keep an eye on B&H for a Black Friday sale. Thanks again Hark. Frank

 

[Roy1961]

Hello and welcome.

 

[TwistedThrottle]

Thanks very much for the advice. I was most interested in their 6-stop X4, but it is back-ordered. The 3-stop and 10-stop are in stock. Any advice about which one to get? Thanks again. Frank
p.s. is Twisted Throttle a motorcycle reference? I own several bikes.

I have the x4 10 stop and use it quite alot. Its most useful in mid day shots. As you start to loose light, the exposure time can quickly surpass the 30 second internal timer so a remote using bulb mode is necessary for the low light long exposures, but thats good practice anyways. If you shoot alot of sunsets or sunrises, the 6 stop would be ideal. I too have been waiting for that 6 stop to come back in stock. I dont have much use for the 3 stop, unless you do outdoor videos at wide apertures, then it might be a VND i'd choose over the 3 stop.
It is a motorcycle reference, but unfortunately the nomenclature lasted longer than the bike did. Had to sell it quite a few years ago and havent had an opportunity to get another yet. Ugh, I miss it though!