# Nikon D3100



## tbone (Jul 23, 2009)

I went looking at new camera's today. I am looking to upgrade to a much better camera. The one I am really leaning towards is the Nikon D3100. Do any of you have any experience with this camera? Any complaints, good points, etc. This will be the most money I've ever spent on a camera, so I want to make sure it's worth it.


----------



## freedomcell (Nov 8, 2010)

I don't own one, but I have a sister and a brother who both recently bought this camera and they both love it.


----------



## threshershark (Sep 7, 2007)

Tbone,

The D3100 is a great camera and you will not be disappointed! The only comment I will make stems from your assertion that budget is a big part of your decision making process.

DSLR cameras have been very, very good for the last 5 years or so. Once you have one, the tendency is for people to expand their selection of lenses to get better at the type of photography they enjoy the most. Action, macro, landscapes, portraits, wildlife, etc.

Lenses are actually the bigger part of the value proposition these days. My only suggestion if cash is tight would be to consider a used Nikon D40. On almost any given day you will find a few on the KSL classifieds. Usually they come with the kit lens, which is an 18-55mm.

The D40 is outstanding, and continues to be used by a few professionals that I know. Going this route might allow you to spend more cash on lenses than a latest-and-greatest kit. 

In my experience, knowledge about how to use the camera's controls and having quality glass are much bigger factors in creating great imagery than which body you choose. 

If this is your first significant jump into the DSLR world, my recommendation would be to get a lightly used body and learn how to use it well. Spend the bulk of your budget on glass, which depreciates less and has more impact on image quality.


----------



## sawsman (Sep 13, 2007)

Good info thresher.

I'm looking for a new camera as well. My main concern is getting it wet, you know out in the tube and stuff. I like my little cheapo pocket camera because I can stick it in the tube, vest or shirt pocket easily and it dosen't take up too much space. On the other hand, I want something that takes better pictures. What a dilema I have... :| 

Sorry tbone.. dont mean to high jack.


----------



## tbone (Jul 23, 2009)

Sawsman, you didn't high jack anything. The more conversation the better in my opinion. Thresher thank you for the comment as well, that gives me some good things to think about. When I went to Picture Line in Salt Lake they also told me about a few of the different options, when it comes to lenses. The two lenses I looked at in addition to the one that comes with the camera is the 50mm and I think it was a 55-200, I think. I can't remember which one came with the camera now.


----------



## threshershark (Sep 7, 2007)

Saws - yes having a camera of the more expensive variety go in the drink is a sobering thought. While there are some ruggedized/waterproof point and shoots, none of them offer the range of adjustment than an SLR brings to the table.

I've settled on getting HVI (high value item) insurance on any gear that I can't afford to replace outright. Most carriers offer some type of all-risk floater for homeowner's or renter's policies to cover specific items. These are generally not too expensive either, $30 or $40 a year for a typcial camera. Spend enough time around water with electronics and something will get wet. 

There are other options too, like inexpensive bag-style waterproof housings that allow you to take photos underwater too.


----------



## threshershark (Sep 7, 2007)

tbone said:


> The two lenses I looked at in addition to the one that comes with the camera is the 50mm and I think it was a 55-200, I think. I can't remember which one came with the camera now.


The best thing to do is identify the kind of photography that interests you, and then get a lens or lenses that are designed for the intended purpose. That's the beauty of an SLR - one body can be used for almost countless specialties.

Most kits come with an 18-55mm lens. This focal length is good as a general purpose snapshot lens. The 18-55 is decent for portraits and landscapes in good lighting conditions. It's also small and very light weight - handy for packing around.

After that, it's all about your individual goals.

The 55-200mm is an inexpensive lens that is versatile for relatively close subjects. It's a good walk around and see what you find midrange zoom. It will not be all that great for sports or wildlife photography.

The 70-300 VR (vibration reduction or image stabilization) is probably the best entry level wildlife lens. Sharper than the 55-200, won't break the bank, and has more reach.

Nikon's 35mm f/1.8 is stellar for low light photography. Low light such as dawn or dusk, shade, or for use indoors. It's a must have for me, and a steal at $199.

The list goes on and on depending on what you find interesting. Feel free to drop me a PM if you want advice on lens choices to get started.


----------



## sawsman (Sep 13, 2007)

threshershark said:


> Saws - yes having a camera of the more expensive variety go in the drink is a sobering thought. While there are some ruggedized/waterproof point and shoots, none of them offer the range of adjustment than an SLR brings to the table.
> 
> I've settled on getting HVI (high value item) insurance on any gear that I can't afford to replace outright. Most carriers offer some type of all-risk floater for homeowner's or renter's policies to cover specific items. These are generally not too expensive either, $30 or $40 a year for a typcial camera. Spend enough time around water with electronics and something will get wet.
> 
> There are other options too, like inexpensive bag-style waterproof housings that allow you to take photos underwater too.


I'm gonna get me a good one and try like mad to keep it dry.


----------

