Hi, Confused on which to buy. I want to shoot flowers and insects with high quality results, is this a good choice for Nikon D3300? Thank you
1763818
great for flowers, slow moving insects, but will be hard trying to capture fast flight objects..
1763819
When I purchased this lens I didn't know if I would like macro photography, but wanted to give it a try. The lens was inexpensive enough that if I didn't like macro, then I wouldn't be wasting a lot of money. As it turns out, I do like macro photography, a lot. The lens is perfect and the photos are sharp. I would buy it again if it ever became necessary. I also recommend purchasing a UV filter for the front of the lens to give it that little bit of protection.
1763820
Yes. But keep in mind that you have to get really close to focus, which is fine for flowers but you might scare off the insects. To get the same picture quality and be able to stand back, you may want to go with a 50mm or 60mm lens. Of course this increases the price...
1763821
I'm don't know anything about the Nikon D3300 but I have been using this lens for a few months and find macro shots are superb. For the price and quality, nothing beats it.
1763822
I use this on both my 3200 and 7100. Awesome lenses! I see no reason why it wouldn't on your 3300.
1763823
This is a good quality lens for the price, but what you have to take into consideration is the distance you are shooting. To get true 1:1 you need to get very close with this lens (Use a filter to not mark the lens, yes that close.). For the flowers it will probably work great, but if you want to do the eyes of an insect it might not be the best choice look at a 105 or a 150 macro. Still I really like it both as a "normal" lens and as a macro for flowers.
1763824
With flowers it will work very well, with insects you may want a macro a bit longer. As for quality it is superb, but like all lenses one must use sense. There is no such thing as a one does everything lens.
1763825
I love this lens! I have some amazing flower shots. If the insect is fast moving and flies away, my zoom was better because I didn't get so close it would spook. It also takes fabulous close portraits!
1763826
The lens is great for flowers and insects but I am not familiar with the D3300 (I use mine on a D7100.) But if you go to the Nikon USA page and find the lens you will see that it has a compatibility chart for what bodies it works with.
726202
I'm an armature photographer.. but have explored both d3100 and a33.. 1) similar image quality.. 2) both do 1080p HD video with auto focus but sony gets a bit warm (hot for some) while video recording.. although I've yet to record for this long 3) sony is a tiny bit smaller.. check out their detailed reviews at dpreview.com.. they helped me make my decision..
1645973
Thanks Conway, I was so happy to see your post it gave me the push to order the Nikon D700 today from B&H.; This is my first full frame camera and I just wanted to make sure that I was making the right decision. I was mostly leaning toward the Nikon but had to consider the Mark 2. Thanks again for your help.
1672484
I'd recommend you get the D3100. It is a marvelous DSLR with great image quality and versatility at a bargain price. The D3200 has a better sensor but the kit lens can not take advantage of that sensor. So unless you are prepared to spend a lot of money on glass (way more $ than the cost of the camera), you will not see any image quality improvement with the D3200. You can get the D3100 with the kit lens and the marvelous Nikkor 35 mm f/1.8 prime for the same price as the D3200 with only the kit lens.
774987
Hi Mr. Hewitt (I wonder if we have any relation?) Anyway, for a true beginner (as in you've never used anything but a point-and-shoot) I'd recommend you get a Nikon D40 and an 18-200 VR. Keep the 18-55 kit lens, you'll find it lighter when your just taking snapshots of the family or whatever. The D40 is an excellent starter camera, it has almost all the tweaks of this much more expensive camera without the weight and cost. The D300 has many advantages over it, but I really feel you'll learn a lot faster with a simpler camera, and step up to this when your ready. I actually started out with a D40 a bit over a year ago, it made starting out quite fun. The 18-200VR will follow you as a great lens on the D300 too, and you can use any newer AF-S lenses on it. If you have older AF-D Nikon lenses lying around that you want to use, a D80 is also a good place to start. It's easier to make the custom tweaks you'll learn about in your photography classes on the D80, but it still has Auto modes as well to get you started. Checkout www.kenrockwell.com, especially his recommended camera page. He's a bit more eloquent than I am. And I wouldn't be so fast to recommend the D60 to anyone, it's just the D40x's guts (plus active D-Lighting, but without the other enhancements of the D300/D3) with a different name stamped on it. I wouldn't recommend the D40x or D60 to anyone, they exist to fill a price point to compete with Canon. If your eyeballing either, jump to the D80 and don't look back.
106720
At $399, the E-PL1 is one of the best buys around. I shoot Nikon full frame cameras and I carry an E-PL1 with me when I need to go light. I've never been disappointed with the quality from the Oly so long as I recognize its limitations. It isn't a DSLR and never will be, but it produces imagery far better than any of the Point and Shoots I've owned, including the coveted Panasonic LX-5 (Leica DeLux D-5)/
1226470
I also like to photograph flowers (and insects) close up and I have been very impressed by the clarity of the SX50HS images. You might want to visit the following web page to see examples of beautiful dragon fly close-ups. Six or seven of these were shot with the Canon SX50HS and the photographer describes the settings he used at the bottom of each photo: http://p4td.lightshedder.com/category/dragonflies/. There are undoubtedly even better cameras for macro photography, but I think this is an excellent choice within its price range.
1815999
I upgraded from the D90, haven't used the D3100. I'd expect it's a good upgrade as the D3100 has been upgraded twice. I think waiting at least ntil the second upgrade makes sense as the next upgrade is more incremental than revolutionary. I think you'll like the D7100. I find it easier to operate and use thatn my D90 even though I had it 3 years. Have fun shooting with whatever you choose.
298202
Canon, Nikon, Sony, Oly, Pentax all make good dSLRs. You just have to find the one that fits you. I think Oly probably leads the pack in features in the entry level market with the 510. Noise is not quite as good at higher ISO as Nikon (speaking of my D50) or the Canons I have seen but you only can judge if it is good enough for your use. I think the colors and metering are quite good in the Oly.
2157468
I have used Nikon with great satisfaction. I wanted a compact camera. It has high megapixels. I love purple. It was on sale.
2197786
I'm a bit of a lens snob too, being a contax shooter. I bought the Lumix fz50 for my wife and it arrived yesterday, and let me tell you, it is fantastic; best digital camera I've ever held. We considered the nikon d80, but my wife preferred the LCD preview on the Lumix, and although it is easy to use, the manual options are versatile. FZ50 is not lighter than the nikon, but on the other hand, it has a 420mm Leica lens, so it does the job of two lenses. The price is incredibly low, I think because once you get out of the 300 dollar range, people think they need skip over to a DSLR. They're wrong! Lumix provides all you need with a Leica lens.
466913
Better for close up portraits than flowers..85mm macro works much better for flowers if you like to get really close..
451808
Nikon D3100 is an excellent camera with great layout for easy use and wonderful image quality. The Nikon 18-300 lens is exceptional as an All in One choice and would give fantastic image quality with this camera. "However" I would not recommend this pairing because of weight in this lens. I am using with a D7100 that I believe is more compatible. The 70-300 lens is lighter ,as is, the18-200. Try to get them all in Your hand to get Your best assessment.
991355
You can't go wrong with Nikon monarch . It depends on the range you are shooting. If you haven't bought at yet , I would get a sig 716 . Because you can shoot long or sort distance with it . The tolerances are milled tightly. the quality is amazing with sig manufacturing . You won't regret it
2024050
I have both. Very little difference. Both are excellent for a point and shoot!
463697
way better, shoots raw, fast autofocus, zoom lens, and so on. But many users reported leaks. I got a Nikon S2 / J4 and WP-N3 housing. cheaper and better than Nikon AW1 and less than half the price.
1203850
yep. I am going to amend my advice and recommend the Tokina 11-16 2.8. This gets excellent reviews and is faster than the others for low light shooting such as UW. I shot with the 10-24 such subjects as a gilded church. It came out spectacular. All in all, if money is not an issue, it is a tossup between the nikon and tokina. I switched to fx format and now use the nikon 12-24. It's a monster. BTW, another great option for the Nikon DX is the great 18-200 zoom.