My first thread noob D5100 and I need help!long post.

TammyCampbell · Dec 3, 2013

Well. I am looking really hard at the 55-300 Thats a pretty big price difference. Maybe Ill earn the high speed ones a little later.. So I want the lens, a filter kit, and a hot shoe 3 axis level. because I have a stigmatism amd a remote. that would be a good start I think.. .. lol

robbins.photo · Dec 3, 2013

TammyCampbell said:
Well. I am looking really hard at the 55-300 Thats a pretty big price difference. Maybe Ill earn the high speed ones a little later.. So I want the lens, a filter kit, and a hot shoe 3 axis level. because I have a stigmatism amd a remote. that would be a good start I think.. .. lol

Lol.. sounds like a pretty good start. As for filters, really I wouldn't worry to much about them, you don't really need much. In my bag for the telephoto lens I have a UV filter and a CPL, and that's pretty much it. There are really two schools of thought on the UV filter, some folks really dislike having them on the lens at all and then some folks prefer to leave them on all the time. Me, I'm in the leave it on crowd. The arguments basically break down into two major camps, the folks that say the UV filter "protects" the lens and the folks that say that it really doesn't and it degrades image quality.

Being the resident heretic I actually don't agree with either camp - I've shot both with and without the UV filter and even using photoshop to pixel peep, I couldn't find a difference. You might see a bit of difference in some limited situations such as ghosting or flaring but really unless your shooting into a pretty bright light source, which is something I can't imagine myself doing anytime soon, it's not something that your likely to see so I just haven't in my experience seen where shooting with the UV filter on degrades the image quality to any noticeable degree.

I also am not in the "it protects the lens" camp for the most part, again in very limited situations (blowing sand or debris, for example) it would probably protect the lens, but how often do you find yourself taking pictures in such a situation? For me that would be pretty rare. So why do I leave the UV filter on pretty much all the time? Two reasons. First whatever glass is exposed on the end of the lens is bound to get dirty. It's going to pick up thumbprints and dust and condensation, etc, etc - and it will need to be cleaned. When you clean it you will eventually, no matter how careful you are, impart cleaning marks - very small scratches. These won't affect image quality of course, but I'd much rather put them on a relatively cheap filter as opposed to my expensive lens.

I could of course take the UV off to shoot, put it back on again later, etc, etc - but I'm basically pretty lazy and since I can't really tell the difference in the final product, I just leave it on. If I were shooting with a higher MP camera or full frame? Well maybe that might make a difference if I tried it with our without UV - but since I'm not and there just doesn't seem to be any difference, well I'll leave the darn thing on there for now. As far as filters are concerned I prefer to spend a little more and get the better quality. You don't have to get completely crazy and go top of the line, $100+ filters - I generally look for Hoya, I prefer multicoated and they usually are in the $20-$30 range.

The CPL I don't really use much, it comes in handy in certain situations for cutting down on reflections - which is great for shooting through glass if you have a light source behind you that is reflecting off it. Comes in handy occasionally at the zoo. Other than that most of the other "filters" I might consider I can do all of that with photoshop at home after the fact. I might eventually pick up an NDL if I get more into landscapes but for right now just the two and I'm pretty much set.

The hot shoe level is really handy for shooting on a tripod and their dirt cheap so that would be a good one to pickup, also protects the hot shoe so it's sort of a double whammy really. Other than that it's just a matter of getting out there and shooting, and never be afraid of a bad shot. Those will be a lot more useful to you in the beginning than the good ones. Each time you get a shot that is bad, analyze it and try to figure out what is bad and why - did I miss my focus point? Was my aperture set wrong? Shutter speed to low? EXIF data can be a huge help in this because it records the cameras settings for each shot.

Most important of all of course, is have fun with it. Look forward to seeing some more images in your Flickr account, and if I can be of any help at all don't hesitate to ask.

TammyCampbell · Dec 4, 2013

Thanks.. I agree. I would rather scratch the inexpensive filter lense over the actual optics. I just makes sense. A CPL. I'll look into it

alv · Dec 4, 2013

mostly, i will pan and have had good luck

the lens seems alittle soft at300 and searches some but for the price it is not bad .my eyes are old and i am amazed at detail i see in photos ,like being young again haha

robbins.photo · Dec 4, 2013

alv said:
mostly, i will pan and have had good luck the lens seems alittle soft at300 and searches some but for the price it is not bad .my eyes are old and i am amazed at detail i see in photos ,like being young again haha

Lol.. well appreciate the info, I've never used one myself so I'm always interested in first hand accounts.

Braineack · Dec 4, 2013

The 55-300 isn't *bad* per say. The IQ is there, it's just slow and clumsy compared to the 70-300. Considering what the 70-300 sells for used, it's hard to acutally recommend the 55-300.

It's cheap, smaller/lighter, and It can focus a LOT closer to subjects than the 70-300, so it has some benefits of its own

for frame of reference I've owned teh 55-200, 55-300, and 70-300.

TammyCampbell · Dec 7, 2013

nikon learning 2 - a set on Flickr Well my new lens came unfortunately the light was failing by the time I had a chance to try to figure it out. I kept switching between the new 55-300mm to the 18-55 as I felt the shot needed. I really didnt have any luck with animals but I wasnt surprised the light had failed by the time I sighted a bird I could shoot. Here ya go..

robbins.photo · Dec 7, 2013

TammyCampbell said:
nikon learning 2 - a set on Flickr Well my new lens came unfortunately the light was failing by the time I had a chance to try to figure it out. I kept switching between the new 55-300mm to the 18-55 as I felt the shot needed. I really didnt have any luck with animals but I wasnt surprised the light had failed by the time I sighted a bird I could shoot. Here ya go..

Looks like your off to a great start! The sleeping cat pics - if you look at the EXIF data it will show you that your shutter speed was 0.3 - meaning the shutter was open for a very long time, and since it was and I'm guessing the camera was probably being hand held that's what causes the images to be blurry. Since your shooting in A mode, try turning your ISO up - on a shot like this probably ISO 800 would be a good place to start. As you turn your ISO up, you'll notice your shutter speed will increase. For handheld start with 1/60 and above for a shutter speed. For a moving target you'll want to go higher to stop motion and avoid motion blur, but for a stationary target you just need enough shutter speed to where camera shake doesn't become an issue.

Love the shot of the cat in the garland - and looks like you've got a couple of really nice landscape captures there as well.

Oh, one other tip - when you do switch lenses make sure you shut the camera off first, switch the lens, then turn it back on. You don't want to remove or put on a lens if the camera is switched on.

TammyCampbell · Dec 7, 2013

Oooops.. good to know.. I think I did that a couple times. switched lenses while it was on. Yeah I came in from shooting and there he was wrapped up in the garland.. couldnt resist him.. lol..

robbins.photo · Dec 7, 2013

TammyCampbell said:
Oooops.. good to know.. I think I did that a couple times. switched lenses while it was on. Yeah I came in from shooting and there he was wrapped up in the garland.. couldnt resist him.. lol..

Well most of the cats I usually take pictures of are a bit bigger than this one, but they all have one thing in common. They are total hams.. lol

TammyCampbell · Dec 9, 2013

Very much so.. He is cute . when he goes out into the snow he leaps to catch snow flakes falling.. very amusing. He was a feral cat. found him as a kitten and he bit the bejeezus out my thumb. lol. He was born under a log.

18.percent.gary · Dec 9, 2013

Looks good!

You've got a really good eye and you're putting it to use which is the most important thing for a beginner. Keep shooting the things that you love as that will help keep you motivated to continue and improve.

Critique wise I was starting to think "utt-ohhhs" about half way through the set... I'm starting to feel nauseous from the tilted horizons... but by the end of the set they were back to level again. Just keep that in mind when you're taking the shot so you don't have to worry about straightening things later on the computer. Overall a pretty solid set... and I don't even like cats!

robbins.photo · Dec 9, 2013

TammyCampbell said:
Very much so.. He is cute . when he goes out into the snow he leaps to catch snow flakes falling.. very amusing. He was a feral cat. found him as a kitten and he bit the bejeezus out my thumb. lol. He was born under a log.

He was born under a log? Whacky coincidence, so was I .. lol.