I've been using my trusty D3100 since early 2012, and after using some of my friends' cameras and seeing how much better photos are from them I think the time to move forward is coming soon.
So what would you recommend for me? I would like to stand by Nikon, seeing that I've got the 35mm, 55-300 (which will soon be traded in for a 18-105) lenses that I would like to keep.
In my relatively brief experience of DSLR photography, the quality of the lenses used is of great significance to image quality, together, of course, with the photographer's skill and technique in image capture and image processing. Did you carry out fair tests, by using your friends' cameras with the same lenses as used on your own camera? Is there something about the D3100 that is impeding your technique?
According to DP Review, and other web reviews, the image quality from the D3100 is very good and it handles well. If funds are limited, perhaps it would be worth considering buying the 18-105mm lens (assuming it is a high quality lens), and keeping both the D3100 and the 55-300mm lens. This should give you a system with high image quality when really needed, plus the flexibility of a wide range of focal lengths.
The reason I'm selling the 55-300mm is that I barely use it, and when I do I don't find that much use for the 200-300 range. I think an 18-105mm would be better suited for my needs.
As for the camera, I didn't use the exact same lens on my friends' ones, but the same types (i.e. 18-55mm kit, 35mm), and the image quality is a lot better. What's more, the D3100 seems to turn out photos that aren't as sharp, and I would go for better focus.
knox - The image quality of the Nikon D3100 is legendary. My wife has used one for gallery prints for three years and I use a D7100. Up to 20x24 inch prints we cannot tell the difference between them even though the files from the D7100 require different PP techniques because of the lack of an AA filter in front of the sensor. If you are not getting sharp images from your D3100 I suggest that you have a focus calibration problem or, if you have been shooting Jpgs, your picture control settings may be different to those of the cameras that you used for comparison. The D3100 certainly does not produce "soft" images unless there is a fault.
I had a D3100 to begin with and the image quality was superb. I upgraded to a D7000, which has way more features, but straight out the camera the images were not as good. The metering and autofocus systems on the D7000 appeared to be less reliable than on the D3100, and despite having more focus points. Not that you can't get superb shots from a D7000, because you can, but if you want to do fairly rapid hand-held shooting it's not the best. If you can stretch to the more recent, but more expensive, D7100 that might be a better option. With the 7000 and series and above you can use the older Nikon D-series lenses, which are still available but a lot cheaper than the current g-series: you can't autofocus with these on a 3000 or 5000 series. After having purchased a couple of lenses, the amount of money you save will be as much as the extra you pay for a 7000 series over one of the cheaper cameras.
The D90 and D300 were both superb cameras in their day, but don't cope too well if you have to raise the ISO for lower light shooting, so I wouldn't recommend either of them unless going very cheap.
(This post was last modified: May 11, 2014, 15:40 by Yaterman.)
Personally!! I don't think a "Bad" lens really exists. Computer design changed all this. I only use a £148 lens, which does all I want, and probably more. Never used a Prime lens, never found the need for one. Attention to detail, and post processing, which seems essential, does carry weight. Finally, to me, a review, is, just one man's opinion. Ed.
Thank you for all your comments - I have heard this before, that maybe it's not my camera but something else that is preventing me from taking better pictures.
I've attached two photos that show exactly what I don't like about the camera: many, many photos turn out like this. the one with the city shows that even with the slightest vibration the photo is just ruined - and I stood as perfectly still as I could! The one with the Roman statues is even worse - most of the times pictures just have a severe lack of sharp focus, no matter of the lighting.
Both are taken at F1.8, very much limiting D o F. Shutter speed, 1/60th. And, apparently, no Tripod/Monopod. All going against you a bit. Statues don't move, so a long exposure, on a tripod, is a possibility? Aperture Priority, about F11, a good start, ISO is a bit high. Focus about the middle row. If doubtful, set to Landscape, and let the camera take over.
Street scene, shutter speed a bit slow, for people moving, bump up the ISO a bit, focus about the middle, again, although it's really not to far away.
This was 3/4 mts. Photoshop, small file size. Ed.
If you try again, using the suggestions I made, then it is a starting point, to go from. I am of the opinion all Digital images need sharpened. This one is a bit too sharp!! 3 mts, P/S. Ed.
As Ed has written, both images have a very narrow depth of field due to using f/1.8. For using hand-held, the camera should produce usable images up to at least ISO 1600, where you would have been able to set f/4 to increase the D.o.F. quite a bit. The noise level at that ISO would only really affect very large prints, and it can be corrected in processing.
The shutter speed of 1/60 should have been fine for the 35mm focal length. However, the first image does appear to have motion blur - is the lens optically stabilised and, if so, does it signal in the viewfinder when stabilisation is ready for you to take the shot?
If you do not have a tripod, borrow one, take a picture, on full Auto, switch off any image stabilization, tnen, off tripod, repeat hand held, with and without image stabilization. Evaluate from there. Ed.
As the other posters have said, if you want to shoot low light you really need to invest in a tripod. If you want to capture motion in low light then it is a case of raising the ISO. From what I recall, the D3100's native ISO only goes up to 3200, and 1600 was about as high as it could go to still produce usable images. The other thing to try in the absence of a tripod, is to set the shooting mode to timer with a 2 second delay, and stabilise the camera against something, e.g. on top of something or against a wall. It takes a bit of practice to do this, and limits your composition, so a tripod is still the best option.
You don't need to spend a lot of money on a tripod. Velbon make some decent entry level ones which are stable enough for most shooting, and don't cost very much at all (I think my first one was £25). Now some photographers absolutely hate using tripods, so it's not worth spending a lot of money on one just in case you find it's not for you, but if you start with a budget one and find you love what it lets you do, you can upgrade later. I used my D3100 with a Velbon tripod all the time for night shots, and got tack sharp images. As long as you are shooting stationary objects, set the ISO to 100, select an appropriate aperture size such as f11, and shoot in aperture priority letting the camera choose the shutter speed for a correct exposure. I don't think the 35mm DX lens has image stabilisation, so you don't need to worry about turning that off.
I've owned and used all the kit you mention (D3100, 35mm f1.8DX, and 55-300mm), and you can definitely get tack sharp photos with these items if you use them right. Something like a D7000 will give you loads more features such as Auto-exposure bracketing, ability to control off-camera flash, time-lapse settings, and an internal focus motor to allow the use of older (and cheaper lenses), but if these are not things you will use then you wouldn't get a lot out of the upgrade.
I guess I was asking for too much from the camera - I know there are some issues with my technique, but I was honestly expecting it to produce better images in these situations. For comparison, I took some photos with my phone and they ended up looking better than the ones my camera took. Maybe it's just that I need some practice with the camera and the lens.
(May 12, 2014, 12:41)Yaterman Wrote: As the other posters have said, if you want to shoot low light you really need to invest in a tripod. If you want to capture motion in low light then it is a case of raising the ISO. From what I recall, the D3100's native ISO only goes up to 3200, and 1600 was about as high as it could go to still produce usable images. The other thing to try in the absence of a tripod, is to set the shooting mode to timer with a 2 second delay, and stabilise the camera against something, e.g. on top of something or against a wall. It takes a bit of practice to do this, and limits your composition, so a tripod is still the best option.
You don't need to spend a lot of money on a tripod. Velbon make some decent entry level ones which are stable enough for most shooting, and don't cost very much at all (I think my first one was £25). Now some photographers absolutely hate using tripods, so it's not worth spending a lot of money on one just in case you find it's not for you, but if you start with a budget one and find you love what it lets you do, you can upgrade later. I used my D3100 with a Velbon tripod all the time for night shots, and got tack sharp images. As long as you are shooting stationary objects, set the ISO to 100, select an appropriate aperture size such as f11, and shoot in aperture priority letting the camera choose the shutter speed for a correct exposure. I don't think the 35mm DX lens has image stabilisation, so you don't need to worry about turning that off.
I've owned and used all the kit you mention (D3100, 35mm f1.8DX, and 55-300mm), and you can definitely get tack sharp photos with these items if you use them right. Something like a D7000 will give you loads more features such as Auto-exposure bracketing, ability to control off-camera flash, time-lapse settings, and an internal focus motor to allow the use of older (and cheaper lenses), but if these are not things you will use then you wouldn't get a lot out of the upgrade.
I found that using a monood was really helpful in many situations where a tripod was way too cumbersome. I started out using one designed as a shooting aid.
The 'V' is removable and there's a standard 1/4-20 stud. I didn't put a 'head' on it and just leaned and twisted to point the camera.
I now have an older Manfrotto 334B with an Arca-swiss QR plate, along with an Alta Pro carbon fiber tripod with a Manfrotto 222 joystick head and a Custom Brackets rotating head.
Valley of the Sun, Arizona
D2Xs, D200's, D100's, LightRoom, CS-CC
2HowardsPhoto.biz
After quite some thought, and despite some of your opinions, I decided that it was after all time for an upgrade, so I got a Nikon D7100.
After owning it for a couple of days, I can see that it's quite an update indeed, it seems that the updates along the years managed to improve the camera and how you interact with it.
I also have a D3100 and had focusing issues to start, still do sometimes, but I got a tripod and this made an amazing difference.
I certainly seem to struggle holding a camera still, not sue why.
I am also learning loads about aperture and DOF. My understanding and use of these are improving if slowly. Keep going. Though a nice new camera would be very nice!
