Are Nikon sensors regarded as better? I do shoot some lower light stuff and my biggest annoyance is when my phone can't pick up what I'm trying to snap. So if that is a differentiator that could be some helpful info
Random Thread of Photography
- Thread starter Angie
- Start date
There's a lot of debate, but the ISO goes up higher on Nikon vs Canon, as well as other factors:
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-Nikon-sensors-are-superior-to-Canon’s-in-image-quality
But, I feel like Canon works on improving and changing a lot, so it's sort of a hard decision. I would probably recommend going somewhere like Christian and handling each, seeing what feels better to you. They'll let you do some test shots. I think it helps a lot to not go in blind!
Thanks for the info! I'm sure there are positives and negatives to both in comparison, so you're probably right, just need to go and test them out for myself!
Good luck! I really do love my Canons, but do shoot a lot of low light. You might not so much with nature and such.
Realized I haven't posted in a long time. From my trip to Cali earlier this year. (quality is a bit spotty when I transferred from my phone to comp.)
Going from your phone to a DSLR is quite a jump. While you can take nice pictures in Auto mode it takes quite a bit of practice and looking stuff up to understand the relationship between aperture & shutter speed with some ISO mixed in. I've been trying to learn more. In fact I might go out into the country to see if I can get some sunset shots after work tonight.
Just upgraded to the D7500, not even out of the box yet. Was back and forth a little between the 7500 and 500 but Nikon had a sale earlier this summer and the 7500 was down to $800 (body). Lot's of reviews out there comparing the two and the extra $$ for the D500 didn't make sense to me as an intermediate hack. Mostly upgraded because the Nikon AF-S 80-400mm lense I bought for bird photography was a pretty substantial hunk of lense to have hanging off my old light weight D5100. Of course, snowball effect, I now need a better standard short zoom.
So I'm about as beginner as it gets. I have a Nikon D3300, and just a couple of kit lenses that came with the camera that do ok, but I'd like to get a better lens.
I was thinking of getting the AF-S 50mm lens which it seems everyone suggests as your first lens you should purchase, but then others suggest the 35mm lens instead.
It seems the 50mm would be better for portrait type shots, but the 35mm would be better for nature and scenery shots? Is that true? If so, then I'd lean to the 35mm I guess, but I want to make sure I'm doing the right thing. Which would be better for a mixture of both portraits and scenery?
I was thinking of getting the AF-S 50mm lens which it seems everyone suggests as your first lens you should purchase, but then others suggest the 35mm lens instead.
It seems the 50mm would be better for portrait type shots, but the 35mm would be better for nature and scenery shots? Is that true? If so, then I'd lean to the 35mm I guess, but I want to make sure I'm doing the right thing. Which would be better for a mixture of both portraits and scenery?
I'm a beginner as well. I'm guessing the kit lens is an 18-55mm. I guess you could set it at 30 and take some shots and then at 50 and do the same to see what you feel would better meet your needs.
Last night by the time I got where I wanted to shoot from it was a little later than I needed. It was just a bit too dark to capture the barn I wanted to get in the foreground very well. Being that I was out in the country I waited till it got darker and took a few shots of the night sky.
The light in the lower part of the second picture is Red Oak in the distance.
The light in the lower part of the second picture is Red Oak in the distance.
Last edited:
In the old days a 55mm (+/-) F/1.4 was the basic "standard" lenses on 35mm film SLR cameras. After having a short zoom (even the cheap 18-55mm kit lense) I'd have a hard time going back to a single prime lense as a hobbyist photographer. Not a pro on assignment so not interested in carrying a bag full of prime lenses and multiple camera bodies.
My Nikon is not a full frame so I am always doing some mental conversion of focal length because I grew up with my old 35mm Minolta and still have than full frame focal length mindset. Been toying around with getting a Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 (essentially a 36-105mm on my DX-format Nikons).
clonedude, is your camera sensor full-size or crop? That might be one of the factors on your new lens.
I would think a prime lens would be for specific purposes. I like being able to zoom in or out to fit the frame. For shooting large objects (ie: Devil's tower) I feel you get a better picture by being further away and zooming in.
Wesley's here so he can obviously give more help than I can ever hope to.
I think that it really depends a ton on what you're going to do in nature. I took the below shot with a fixed 50mm f/1.4 on my old cropped sensor. On the crop, I don't know that it would have been quite as good for a landscape shot.
This really depends upon your budget and how serious you are as far as wanting to go. I have a Nikon, which I do like, I've always had the debate of mirrorless or the standard dslr. Whenever I shoot landscape, I shoot in mirror lock up mode to reduce the "slap" and helps with a cleaner shot. But I bought my D810 on ebay a couple years ago about $1200 less than what they go for new. It only had 4K shutter actuations, so basically it wasn't being used (backup camera). I shoot a lot of low light scenes and have been happy with my camera. Great in between cameras that cross over as professional and are steals could be the Nikon D750 or the Sony A7III. Maybe check on the A6500 as well.
I don't know if that helps, but if you have any other questions, just PM me.
Your D3300 is a cropped sensor, so factor a 1.5x the focal length and that's what it would be if you had a full-frame sensor. The 50mm prime lens is set up more for portraits, but that would be a 75mm lens on your camera. The 35mm lens would factor to basically a 50mm lens, so even your 35 mm would be set up for portraits. If you're wanting a wider angle lens for landscape, you'd want to check out a 28 mm for nikon, or go 3rd party off brand in Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, or Rokinon.
You have to ask yourself do you want a prime lens or a zoom. Both have their pros and cons. Prime are generally sharper, but you have to move around more and that's what you're stuck at for focal length. Zoom lenses you have more to work with, but are slightly less sharp and are a bit heavier too. I have 3 zoom and 1 prime.
Hope that didn't confuse you, if you have any other questions let me know and I'll try to answer them the best I can.
Thank you, that is very helpful. I'm going to dive into searching later this week and may shoot you some questions. I have a buddy who is photographer in LA who told me he has old cameras he hasn't used in a while and would be willing to sell them to me at a fair price. Unfortunately he is in the Azores for 16 days straight (side note: I'd never heard of these islands before and every single picture he posts is unbelievable. Seems like a photographers heaven lol) and its hard to hold a legit convo haha. Going to look at what he has when he gets back on Friday.
But again, thanks for all this info. Always great to get some perspective from people using different kinds.
And I also want to add, ebay will generally be cheaper, but you also have to be on your P's and Q's as far as what you're bidding on or buying. Make sure there are a lot of pics on the product and plenty of info about it as well. I ask as many questions as I can because stuff could be scratched or flawed in many ways. But I've purchased 2 of my lenses, camera body, and 2 flashes altogether and it's saved me about $2500 at the time. Everything has worked perfectly for me so far.
