Help Noob here

[Char]

I'm about to buy a DSLR but I'm stumped between buying a Nikon D90 or choosing a different one.
I've been reading about how I should focus on finding a camera which will suit the type of photography I will ensue in. For now I plan on shooting insects, mushrooms, etc. Things that are small and possibly in movement. I also like going to concerts and taking pictures of the artist up close.
Is this camera good for all of this? Is Nikon 105mm lens a good one for this? If not, what other cameras should I consider? *Budget is not an issue.*

Thanks.

 

[crimbfighter]

Well, "budget is not an issue" is a little open ended... If budget is truly not an issue, there are much higher end camera bodies you could get that you would be sure not to outgrow for a long time.

If there is a particular reason you are looking at the D90, I think it would serve you very well. Or, if you can dump a few hundred more bucks ($1200 I think for the body) the D7000 that was just released might be a good choice. The preliminary reviews seem excellent.

Lenses will probably make the biggest impact for you. You mention the 105mm, but which one? The 105mm f/2.8 macro would be an excellent lens. If you want to shoot the bugs, fungus and such, you would be best off with a macro lens because you get the true 1:1 reproduction on the image sensor. There are trade offs, though. You will have a razor thin depth of field at large apertures, the autofocus on macro lenses tend to "hunt" alot making it slow to find focus. Those are just a couple of the trade offs that wouldn't lend themselves well to the other types of photos you want to take. You mention taking photos of band members, so you'll want something with a large aperture for low light. This is where the D7000 might help, too. The image quality at high ISO is very good. Would help you with low light shots. Lens choice for this also depends on where you will be taking the photos from. Are you right next to the stage? Or in the back? The further back you are the longer lens you will want. You would probably spend $500 on a fast prime if you were next to the stage, but might need a $1000 80-200 f/2.8 or a $2000 70-200 f/2.8 VRII lens if you are shooting from the back row. If you're looking for one "do it all" lens, you will have to get something that is a compromise. Something like the new 55-300 f/4.5-5.6. It won't do as well in low light and the optics aren't quite as good, but you get the flexibility of a big zoom range.

So, anyway, as you can see, there is a lot more to think about. I would also suggest using this forums search function. There have been a lot of similar questions asked in the past, and a lot of good answers. Spend a day or two looking through old posts, and you'll find a lot of answers you didn't even know you were looking for. Good Luck!

 

[NikonNewbie]

Budget is not an issue....I would love to able to say those words...:lmao:

I love my D40, and I've never heard a complaint from a Nikonian...did you ck out their site?
They are way to "over my head" but if you need more info on this specific camera they are really PASSIONATE about their cameras.

 

[hjf]

If budget is not an issue, get the $7000 Leica M9. It's not a DSLR, it's a Rangefinder. Much lighter and easier to carry. Unless you want to do macro, shoothing with a rangefinder is much more fun and straightforward.

With DSLRs one tends to spend so much time doing adjustments and fixes and developing raw and photoshopping, it takes all the FUN in photography. With a rangefinder, the only difference is parallax in the viewfinder but a much smaller and lighter camera, which you can actually carry around everywhere without looking like a geek, and without calling people's attention.

 

[Char]

If there is a particular reason you are looking at the D90, I think it would serve you very well. Or, if you can dump a few hundred more bucks ($1200 I think for the body) the D7000 that was just released might be a good choice. The preliminary reviews seem excellent.

Lenses will probably make the biggest impact for you. You mention the 105mm, but which one? The 105mm f/2.8 macro would be an excellent lens. You mention taking photos of band members, so you'll want something with a large aperture for low light. This is where the D7000 might help, too. The image quality at high ISO is very good. Would help you with low light shots. Lens choice for this also depends on where you will be taking the photos from. Are you right next to the stage? Or in the back? The further back you are the longer lens you will want. You would probably spend $500 on a fast prime if you were next to the stage...

So, anyway, as you can see, there is a lot more to think about. I would also suggest using this forums search function...

The 105mm macro lens I meant to mention was Nikon 105mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor Lens. I've read it is really good and the pictures I've seen are beautiful. Can I use this lens on the D7000? What are the trade offs and perks of this camera compared to the D90?
If I were to take pictures at a concert, I would be in front of the stage. Which of the cameras would suit me better if I were to be constantly using both lenses?
Thank you!

Budget is not an issue....I would love to able to say those words...:lmao:

I love my D40, and I've never heard a complaint from a Nikonian...did you ck out their site?
They are way to "over my head" but if you need more info on this specific camera they are really PASSIONATE about their cameras.

LOL Thanks. I'll make sure to check out their site.

If budget is not an issue, get the $7000 Leica M9. It's not a DSLR, it's a Rangefinder. Much lighter and easier to carry. Unless you want to do macro, shoothing with a rangefinder is much more fun and straightforward.

With DSLRs one tends to spend so much time doing adjustments and fixes and developing raw and photoshopping, it takes all the FUN in photography. With a rangefinder, the only difference is parallax in the viewfinder but a much smaller and lighter camera, which you can actually carry around everywhere without looking like a geek, and without calling people's attention.

Leicas look pretty awesome. But I would rather start off with something a bit more "cheap" and my main interest is macro. I like photoshop but to some extent. And I don't mind the attention. Thanks!

 

[crimbfighter]

The 105mm macro lens I meant to mention was Nikon 105mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor Lens. I've read it is really good and the pictures I've seen are beautiful. Can I use this lens on the D7000? What are the trade offs and perks of this camera compared to the D90?
If I were to take pictures at a concert, I would be in front of the stage. Which of the cameras would suit me better if I were to be constantly using both lenses?
Thank you!

Changing lenses is the same process on either camera, so that doesn't make a difference. It's more about the capabilities of the different bodies. The D7000 is a step up in camera bodies from the D90. Better features, better image sensor (at least so far) better construction and so on. It's easier for you to Google D90 vs. D7000 than it is for me to list the differences. Or just go to Nikon's website and compare the two side by side. And yes, you can use the lens on both cameras. Just Google a lens compatibility chart for Nikon cameras and it will tell you which lenses are compatible.

 

[kundalini]

....... For now I plan on shooting insects, mushrooms, etc. Things that are small and possibly in movement. ...

..... Unless you want to do macro, ......

:er: You might want to read the post rather than read into it. Methinks the OP is referring to macro work.


The Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 is the gold standard in Nikon's micro (macro) line-up and other manufacturers are hard pressed to match its performance. It is an FX lens, but will work marvelously on a DX body.

 

[Overread35]

Two small questions

1) Are you dead set on going nikon?

2) Do springtails interest you at all (ie insects/macro photography of things about 2-3mm in size)

 

[Char]

....... For now I plan on shooting insects, mushrooms, etc. Things that are small and possibly in movement. ...

..... Unless you want to do macro, ......

:er: You might want to read the post rather than read into it. Methinks the OP is referring to macro work.


The Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 is the gold standard in Nikon's micro (macro) line-up and other manufacturers are hard pressed to match its performance. It is an FX lens, but will work marvelously on a DX body.

LOL Yes. Thanks. I am considering this lens. seems pretty nice.

 

[Char]

Two small questions

1) Are you dead set on going nikon?

2) Do springtails interest you at all (ie insects/macro photography of things about 2-3mm in size)

I guess you could say I am into taking pictures of really tiny things. *no pun intended*
Not springtails tho. More like fungi that are around that size.

Not dead set on Nikon but it seems like a good choice. What are your thoughts?

 

[Char]

The 105mm macro lens I meant to mention was Nikon 105mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor Lens. I've read it is really good and the pictures I've seen are beautiful. Can I use this lens on the D7000? What are the trade offs and perks of this camera compared to the D90?
If I were to take pictures at a concert, I would be in front of the stage. Which of the cameras would suit me better if I were to be constantly using both lenses?
Thank you!

Changing lenses is the same process on either camera, so that doesn't make a difference. It's more about the capabilities of the different bodies. The D7000 is a step up in camera bodies from the D90. Better features, better image sensor (at least so far) better construction and so on. It's easier for you to Google D90 vs. D7000 than it is for me to list the differences. Or just go to Nikon's website and compare the two side by side. And yes, you can use the lens on both cameras. Just Google a lens compatibility chart for Nikon cameras and it will tell you which lenses are compatible.

Will do! Thanks!

 

[Overread35]

Two small questions

1) Are you dead set on going nikon?

2) Do springtails interest you at all (ie insects/macro photography of things about 2-3mm in size)

I guess you could say I am into taking pictures of really tiny things. *no pun intended*
Not springtails tho. More like fungi that are around that size.

Not dead set on Nikon but it seems like a good choice. What are your thoughts?

Nikon or Canon are both great companies to go for - either one has a great range of in house lenses and 3rd party brands that will let you take fantastic shots of insects and fungi.
I only asked on the Springtail front since for greater than 1:1 macro photography (which is what petty much all prime macro/micro lenses on the market achieve) Canon are the only company that specifically make a lens that can do that kind of photography. It isn't the best and only option (setups with microscope elements and bellow as well as those using close up lens attachments can equal or best the canon lens) but it is a popular choice for many wanting to do that kind of photography.
If you are interested in what the lens can do its called the MPE 65mm macro; but as you say fungi I'm inclined to think that you'll be perfectly fine without need of the MPE (even among macro photographers its a rarer lens)

 

[hjf]

....... For now I plan on shooting insects, mushrooms, etc. Things that are small and possibly in movement. ...

..... Unless you want to do macro, ......

:er: You might want to read the post rather than read into it. Methinks the OP is referring to macro work.

lol i swear I didnt see that, i just saw the part he said about going to concerts!

 

[EddieDerbyshire]

If money is not an issue get a canon 7d or a nikon d3s
but if it is go with a canon 550d/t2i, 60d or a nikon D3100, d7000
The invest in a nice macro lens, Search up some reviews on different macro lenses.
Please like my facebook group for my input? Only takes a second of your time -
Login | Facebook