Nikon D3000 - What next?

[nikonodactyl]

Hello all. This is my first post for advice here. I've been reading back over the forum and learning a lot of helpful things. Currently I am primarily using a Nikon D3000 (I also have an old Minolta film camera and use my Iphone for lomo type shots when I don't have a camera with me) with the 18-55 kit lens. I purchased this last November and it is my first DSLR. I know it isn't the best out there and I've felt some regret (after reading things on here) in not buying at least the D90, but I am still very much a beginner and am not sure that an upgrade would be beneficial to me at this point? Would it be wise to sell my D3000 now and purchase something that gives me more room to grow?

The only real issues I've faced with the D3000 concern its performance in low light/night time situations. I am considering purchasing the 35mm f1.8 and hoping that will help with this. Would it also benefit me to buy a speedlight? Would the SB400 be sufficient for my needs?

I am looking to get into taking portraits. People are my favorite subjects.

Thanks!

[Shokinen]

Originally Posted by nikonodactyl

The only real issues I've faced with the D3000 concern its performance in low light/night time situations. I am considering purchasing the 35mm f1.8 and hoping that will help with this. Would it also benefit me to buy a speedlight? Would the SB400 be sufficient for my needs?

I am looking to get into taking portraits. People are my favorite subjects.

Well, at least you know what you want to improve. Many people are wandering if they should upgrade but aren't sure why hehehe.

I have the 35mm f/1.8 and I love the lens. I use it from time to time for low light but mostly for shallow depth of field. For me, low light = external flash + defuser for portrait, and tripod for anything that doesn't move.

The D90 will give you maybe a stop (ISO1600 instead of 800 without too much noise but not inexistant) but will not transform every picture in a masterpiece. I upgraded from my D60 only because of the ergonomics. I shoot mostly in Manual and didn't like going through the menu. I can do most of the main changes straight on the body with the D90.

Don't me wrong here, I love my D90 and it will give you more things like the ability to use wireless flash, better viewfinder, better focus system, etc. But I would invest in some accessories before changing your body if you are serious about your photography. The D90 as just been replaced, so the new D7000 will be in 2 years and so on. Accessories / lens are usualy a better investment and will give you access to other types of photography.

My 2 cents

[nikonodactyl]

Originally Posted by Shokinen

Don't me wrong here, I love my D90 and it will give you more things like the ability to use wireless flash, better viewfinder, better focus system, etc. But I would invest in some accessories before changing your body if you are serious about your photography. The D90 as just been replaced, so the new D7000 will be in 2 years and so on. Accessories / lens are usualy a better investment and will give you access to other types of photography.

My 2 cents

I agree with you there. I see that the D3000 has already been replaced with the D3100. I'm actually on Amazon at the moment and have a remote (anyone had issues with the opteka remotes?), a better tripod and the 35mm f1.8 sitting in my cart waiting to check out but I just haven't clicked the button. I'm wondering if I should hold off for Black Friday sales. Do they usually have sales on lenses and such? I know that's when I got my camera and kit lens last year. After reading more I'm also considering hinting at the SB600 to my significant other for Christmas

[Almond.Butterscotch]

I have the D40. It was 'replaced' by the D40x and then again by the D60 and then by the D3000 and now by the D3100, but it still works and it still serves me well. You've already popped down the money for the D3000 and if you sell it, you won't get all your money back, so why not squeeze it for every brilliant shot you can get?

Check out Ivan Makarov's flickr stream (http:///www.flickr.com/photos/ivanomak). He has a D300 now, but if you look through his 'most faved' set at the ones that have several hundred faves- most of those were taken with a D40.

And they're brilliant. I haven't seen stuff that good come from many others who shoot full frame or the D300 (or 7D on Canon's side).

I'd recommend a lens next. If you enjoy shooting people, you're likely going to want a fast [longish] prime. That's really where issues with the D40/x/60/3000/5000/31000 really set in- portrait lenses for those are all still AF-D (except for the new 85mm f/1.4 which costs 1600 beans). If the 50mm f/1.4 is too short (on a crop sensor, it should be good), then maybe the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 (~900USD, may be hard to get as its still fairly new).

All that said, the 35mm is just fantastic. I love it- it really is my workhorse.

[nokiN]

Originally Posted by nikonodactyl

Hello all. This is my first post for advice here. I've been reading back over the forum and learning a lot of helpful things. Currently I am primarily using a Nikon D3000 (I also have an old Minolta film camera and use my Iphone for lomo type shots when I don't have a camera with me) with the 18-55 kit lens. I purchased this last November and it is my first DSLR. I know it isn't the best out there and I've felt some regret (after reading things on here) in not buying at least the D90, but I am still very much a beginner and am not sure that an upgrade would be beneficial to me at this point? Would it be wise to sell my D3000 now and purchase something that gives me more room to grow?

The only real issues I've faced with the D3000 concern its performance in low light/night time situations. I am considering purchasing the 35mm f1.8 and hoping that will help with this. Would it also benefit me to buy a speedlight? Would the SB400 be sufficient for my needs?

I am looking to get into taking portraits. People are my favorite subjects.

Thanks!

The 35 mm f/1.8 will induce a fair amout of distortion in your portrait subjects faces, particulary when used for just head shots. The AF 50 mm f/1.8D will be sharper and produce much less distortion, but will not auto focus on the D3000. However, since the AF 50 mm f/1.8D does send distance information (the D) the D3000 will illuminate the in-focus indicator in the viewfinder when you manually focus the lens. It would take a bit of practice but, I recommend manual focus and the AF 50 mm f/1.8D over the 35 mm.

The SB-400 doesn't have much more power output than the D3000 pop flash has. For portraiture you really want to get the light off of the camera, and you want to modify that light to make is appear much, much larger. A larger appearing light source produces much softer shadows and a softer quality of light.

An inexpensive light modifier for a speedlight is a photographic umbrella and umbrella mount on a light stand.

[Almond.Butterscotch]

Originally Posted by nokiN

However, since the AF 50 mm f/1.8D does send distance information (the D) the D3000 will illuminate the in-focus indicator in the viewfinder when you manually focus the lens. It would take a bit of practice but, I recommend manual focus and the AF 50 mm f/1.8D over the 35 mm.

If you're really okay with manual focus, then you should get a 50mm f/1.8 that was meant to be a manual focus lens (they're much smoother in MF which is a very good thing- especially for focus accuracy) like the AI-s or E versions.

That said, the 50mm f/1.4 isn't all that expensive a lens either (~$400) and it will AF on your camera and its 2/3rds of a stop faster.

[nikonodactyl]

Thanks everyone. After some consideration I went ahead and picked up the 35mm f1.8 for my D3000. Just from testing it out over the weekend I have to say I absolutely love it, it has opened up a lot for me that I wasn't getting with the 18-55 lens. The bokeh is terrific. That being said I have noticed the distortion in my portrait subjects faces that was mentioned. With Christmas coming up I'm wondering what else I should wish for now that I've got my 35. Would having one of the 50mm benefit me still for portraits? Will I notice a big difference between the 1.8 and the 1.4 (other than being able to auto focus with the 1.4)? Or should I be considering another lens entirely? Perhaps one with a longer reach than my 18-55? I'm trying to keep it under $400.

Other gear suggestions welcomed too. I've got extra memory cards, a bag and a tripod already so I'm thinking of researching lighting sources next.

[inkista]

Just a thought, but now that you've got some hardware, you may want to consider investing in some software as well. Photoshop Lightroom is worth at least downloading and evaluating. The current release (Lightroom 3) has a lens profile feature that corrects for lens distortion. Of course, there are a lot of other cheaper software alternatives that can do that, too, but Lightroom is a good photographic workflow tool, like iPhoto or Picasa on serious steroids.

Your post-processing software is your digital darkroom.

[nikonodactyl]

Originally Posted by inkista

Just a thought, but now that you've got some hardware, you may want to consider investing in some software as well. Photoshop Lightroom is worth at least downloading and evaluating. The current release (Lightroom 3) has a lens profile feature that corrects for lens distortion. Of course, there are a lot of other cheaper software alternatives that can do that, too, but Lightroom is a good photographic workflow tool, like iPhoto or Picasa on serious steroids.

Your post-processing software is your digital darkroom.

I was using Photoscape for the longest time and got Photoshop CS4 to try to move into more "serious" post processing. I've just started using it though and to be honest most of the time I find myself staring at it saying "Ok, what now?" and I end up toying with things until I come into something that works (with the aid of photoshop actions as well) by luck. I guess I haven't really developed a lot of knowledge or a routine yet but I'm working on it.

[inkista]

Lightroom is actually a different application than Photoshop and serves a different purpose. You ideally use both of them in concert together. While Photoshop is more for in-depth image manipulation and compositing, Lightroom is more geared for the photographer's workflow. It's also less expensive. A full license is about US$300; a student one is about $85.

They've got a pretty thorough presentation on LR features here:
http://tv.adobe.com/watch/getting-st...-is-lightroom/