Nikon D3100 - NIKKOR AF-S DX 18-55 mm f/3.5-5.6G VR - What's the zoom like?

[Sebastior]

For recording nature videos and taking pictures, and you wanna get a clear shot up a tree, would this do the job?
Or for recording birds high up in the sky?

 

[480sparky]

18-55 for birding? No.

 

[Sebastior]

Think i'd better off with a Panasonic DMC-72/70? I'm on quite a low budget, so maybe i should start with that one, then save up money for a proper camera with a proper good lens.

 

[480sparky]

For distant subjects, the camera really isn't the issue. The lens is. You'll need a telephoto lens. I can't speak for the Panasonic as I'm not familiar with it. But it seems like you're asking far too much with your budget.

 

[Sebastior]

Well from what i've seen, the panasonic one seems to be a good starting point for me. Just thought i'd ask about the nikon since the price was practically the same.

 

[H.M.D]

bird with lens !! no
you can used 70-300 lens zoom, good lens and perfect photo
i used a Nikon D3100 and lens ( 50mm lens/ 70-300mm lens / 18-55mm lens )
but i will sale it to 799.84$

 

[hamlet]

Well from what i've seen, the panasonic one seems to be a good starting point for me. Just thought i'd ask about the nikon since the price was practically the same.

That panasonic camera packs a whole lot awesome features.

Here are the pros and cons listed from: ephotozine.com

[h=3]Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ72 Pros[/h]

Lots of optical zoom

Feature packed

Excellent battery life

Decent image quality

Plenty of buttons for the experienced user

Teleconverter available for additional zoom

[h=3]Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ72 Cons[/h]

Shooting slows down after just a few shots in some of the continuous shooting modes

The number of buttons may overwhelm a novice

Video quality suffers as you zoom in

Lowest end of the zoom:
http://www.magezinepublishing.com/e...onic-lumix-dmc-fz72-wide-angle_1381242704.jpg

highest end of the zoom
http://www.magezinepublishing.com/e...mix-dmc-fz72-full-optical-zoom_1381242286.jpg

This is an amazing camera for that price. If image quality doesn't bother you, then go for it is all i can say.

 

[hamlet]

For distant subjects, the camera really isn't the issue. The lens is. You'll need a telephoto lens. I can't speak for the Panasonic as I'm not familiar with it. But it seems like you're asking far too much with your budget.

Yeah, i agree with Sparky. If money is an issue then maybe it is best to choose a different hobby because things can get pretty expensive around these parts .

 

[bigal1000]

For distant subjects, the camera really isn't the issue. The lens is. You'll need a telephoto lens. I can't speak for the Panasonic as I'm not familiar with it. But it seems like you're asking far too much with your budget.

Yeah, i agree with Sparky. If money is an issue then maybe it is best to choose a different hobby because things can get pretty expensive around these parts .

Agree here your picking the wrong hobby if you don't have any money !!!

 

[Sebastior]

I'm not looking to get into professional photography, just wanna take decent nature pictures and shoot decent nature vids for fun, they don't need to be AMAZING pictures.
Being a guitar player can be kinda expensive too, yet i haven't had any problems with that, money wise. You just save up money for whatever you need, even if it takes a while. I don't see what the big deal is.
If you grow up broke, you kinda learn to save up.

 

[sashbar]

I'm not looking to get into professional photography, just wanna take decent nature pictures and shoot decent nature vids for fun, they don't need to be AMAZING pictures.
Being a guitar player can be kinda expensive too, yet i haven't had any problems with that, money wise. You just save up money for whatever you need, even if it takes a while. I don't see what the big deal is.
If you grow up broke, you kinda learn to save up.

Do not worry, Nikon 18-55 kit lense is very, very good, it punches way above its wight and price tag. As a value for money high quality versatile camera 3xxx or 5xxx "baby" Nikon DSLR is impossible to beat these days. You can buy it with confidence. And later on when you have some spare money you can add more lenses. But as a start D3xxx with 18-55 is an excellent camera.

 

[sm4him]

I'm not looking to get into professional photography, just wanna take decent nature pictures and shoot decent nature vids for fun, they don't need to be AMAZING pictures.
Being a guitar player can be kinda expensive too, yet i haven't had any problems with that, money wise. You just save up money for whatever you need, even if it takes a while. I don't see what the big deal is.
If you grow up broke, you kinda learn to save up.

Do not worry, Nikon 18-55 kit lense is very, very good, it punches way above its wight and price tag. As a value for money high quality versatile camera 3xxx or 5xxx "baby" Nikon DSLR is impossible to beat these days. You can buy it with confidence. And later on when you have some spare money you can add more lenses. But as a start D3xxx with 18-55 is an excellent camera.

Yes, the 18-55 "kit" lens is a decent enough lens. In fact, I still use mine a good bit. I have "better" glass, but don't really have anything below 28mm, so if I want a wider focal length, I wouldn't hesitate to use my 18-55.

However--it is NOT really going to be effective for much in the way of nature shots, certainly not for "clear shots up a tree" or "recording birds in the sky." You shoot birds in the sky with an 18-55, all you're going to get is a lot of sky and some little dots.

I'd also disagree though, that you need to pick a different hobby, if you can't afford much. I started this hobby as a broke single mom! I started with a D5100 and the 18-55 lens. I VERY slowly added other lenses as I could, and just worked with what I had.
Yes, only having the 18-55 will limit you, fairly severely if you're wanting nature shots. But, you can at least start learning, and then add what you can, as you can.

If nature is what you're really interested in, I'd HIGHLY recommend the 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 lens, but it might be out of your budget, even used. If so, look into the longest focal length you CAN get in your budget. At least 200mm, 300mm would be better. I started with a 55-200--it was NOT a great lens, but it was cheap and I learned some things with it. Then I got a 55-300. It wasn't all that great either, but it was cheap, and longer than the 200mm. Then I got the 70-300…and, for the price, it is a SOLID lens. I still use it, sometimes, even though I now have a 150-500 lens and a 70-200 f/2.8 lens.

Point is, buy what you can afford to get started, but just realize that if you're wanting to do much in the way of nature stuff, you want as long a focal length as you can afford to get.

 

[Sebastior]

I did find a 'Tamaron AF Di 70-300 4-5,6', pretty cheap.
In the lens name, where is the focal length? I know **** all about this hehe

 

[480sparky]

I did find a 'Tamaron AF Di 70-300 4-5,6', pretty cheap.
In the lens name, where is the focal length? I know **** all about this hehe

70-300 would be the focal length..... 70 to 300mm zoom.

AF means AutoFocus.

Di means it's a full-frame lens, but will still work perfectly on crop sensor bodies.

 

[Sebastior]

Ah right, thanks!