DSLR Questions

Answers:

• You are correct, Nikon's 3000 series does not have focusing motors. You actually have to skip the 5000 series and buy a 7000 series to get the AF motor, a decent price jump if comparing same generation tech. That said, newer lenses are designed with AF-S anyway (both low and high end), so it really only affects you if you are set on using older Nikkors.
• Lenses still have an AF/MF switch; whether the motor is AF-S or not doesn't matter. For AF-S lenses, you have the option of full time manual override--after the camera focuses, you can modify it manually without having to change the switch.
• Uses of larger apertures hasn't changed (narrower depth of field; higher shutter speeds in darker conditions). Overkill is defined by your budget, I'd say. Personally I'm happy with f/2-2.8 since I prefer having slightly more DOF than less. But this is highly subjective.
• F mount will not die in the foreseeable future. Of the major brands, I'd say Sony Alpha (focus is on NEX) & Pentax K (few new products) are the ones in danger, and standard Four Thirds is de facto dead.
• The max shutter speed depends on the specific model; you'll have to read the specs. Usually it's 1/4000, give or take a stop.
• ISO is still important because noise/grain still exist. It matters "less" since it is now a free floating value like shutter and aperture, rather than something you were married to with each film roll. Micro Four Thirds and APS sensors can generally handle ISOs of up to 1600+ well; full frame up to 6400+. It depends on the model and your personal standards though.

Things I'd add:

• I shamelessly plug Micro 4/3, so here's my obligatory endorsement. Good value, small system. Minimal performance differences vs. APS DSLRs IMO. Really hit stride with last year's body/lens releases.
• Do you still have your old Canon equipment? The EF mount is still very much alive and well.
• If you are a fan of legacy glass, Sony NEX is the place to be ATM. They feature focus peaking, where the EVF/LCD assists you by outlining what is in focus. There's a new "speed booster" reverse 0.71x teleconverter for full frame/35mm lenses that widens the angle of view and increases the maximum aperture by one stop (pricey though).

 

Modern ISOs on high-end cameras are insane, I've had 10,000ISO photos that were fine for web size before, and I've routinely had 1600 and 3200 published in international print and commercial websites. That's out of a D3s though, which until last year was the ultimate high-ISO camera. Even on a lower-end camera you can get good results for online use at four-digit ISOs.

I'd highly recommend either a D3200 or D5100 if you can manage it. The D5100 has the same image sensor as the very highly regarded D7000.

Kit lenses are slow because they're inexpensive zooms. They're optically much better than the cheap zooms of the film era, but they're still subject to the same limitations of cost and physical size. Nikon has a 35mm f/1.8 that's equivalent to a 50mm on film, and it's affordable, relatively cheap, and very sharp. There's also a new 50mm 1.8 that's awesome, but it'll be like a 75mm on a film camera in terms of field of view. (Although that can be a good thing with doll photography.) Sigma also has an excellent 30mm 1.4, everybody I know that uses it loves it.

One cool thing about AF-S lenses is that any of them above the kit lenses let you manual focus whenever you want, you can just grab the ring and adjust focus, even when the camera is in AF mode. They actually use ultrasonic vibrations to move the glass around, so the focus ring isn't actually physically connected to the motor, which is what makes this possible, except in the kit lenses where there's a more normal electric motor that's directly connected to the focus ring. One cool trick that many pros use is to set the camera so that focus is on a separate button from the shutter release, so you can press the button when you want focus, but if you want to hold it or use manual focus, you just leave that separate button alone and the shutter release doesn't do anything but set the exposure and fire the camera.

Micro 4/3 is a pretty cool system, but size is its biggest advantage, and price the biggest drawback. An older model is cheap, but camera performance is no better than a DSLR twice its age, and the newer ones cost about the same as a decent Nikon or Canon DSLR. My Panasonic GF2 came out around two years ago, but it's not really satisfactory above ISO 800, while a similarly-aged DSLR (D3100) is good to 1600 or better. Lenses tend to be expensive, too - the 40mm equivalent 20mm 1.7 that Panasonic makes is amazing, but it's like $350, compared to around $200 for the comparable Nikon 35mm 1.8.

 

I'd be hesitant to put too much stock in Consumer Reports when it comes to cameras. Their DSLR reviews are aimed at mom and dad who want a "good camera" to take pics of the kids, people like that, and much of the test criteria revolves around performance in auto mode with JPEGs, simplicity of use, and things like that which don't really affect someone willing to take control of the camera and edit photos on the computer. dpreview.com is generally a pretty good source for reviews of cameras of this level.

 

Cosplayshots is not entirely wrong about the size & cost of m4/3--bodies are somewhat cheaper but popular lenses are somewhat more expensive. The main advantage really is size, though I think it shouldn't be understated. A smaller/lighter system is more easily carried around and will likely see more use, especially once the new-toy stage ends. (Example of logical extreme: cell phone camera.)

While I would normally say to see and feel the different systems in-store to see which one fits you, Olympus and Panasonic have spotty dealer networks so that might not be possible in your area. The size difference is pretty substantial, and some people do favor bigger.

About Consumer Reports, I like them for other things but personally not for any type of electronics. (They're kind of outdated and use oversimplified rating methods.) I would also second using DPReview.com for cameras.

 

I like DPReview as well, and I will normally consult photozone.de before investing in a new lens.

If you haven't used a SLR camera in a long time, and are coming from full-frame film to an APS-sized sensor camera, the "kit" zoom lenses that are bundled with bodies can be very useful as a starter item. Kit lenses typically have poor build quality and barely-usable manual focus capability, but they are cheap and their wide zoom range can be useful for figuring out what focal length(s) you use the most, before plunking down serious money on good lenses. Shooting with something like an 18-50mm f/3.5-5.6 cheapo kit lens and looking at the EXIF data of your "keeper" shots to see what settings you used can help you work out of you need a standard zoom lens (like something of the 17-50 f/2.8 variety) or if you'd be happier with say, just a 35mm prime lens. Likewise for the 50mm/1.8 lenses... both Canon's and Nikon's offerings have crap build quality, but are optically decent and are a cheap way to find out of you like using a 50mm lens.

Remember too, that with an SLR system, the lenses are generally the larger and longer-term investments than the bodies. You might buy a new body every few years to significantly upgrade your image quality, use the latest flash memory types, etc... but any lens you buy is likely to have a service life that spans multiple bodies.

 

Sharing systems is good. Community is good. "Free" lens rentals are good too.

D3100 is an APS (a.k.a. "crop") camera with a sensor smaller than 35mm film, so the faithful 50mm won't have the same field of view on this camera. You'd need something like the 35mm f/1.8 DX instead.

Macro is something I've always meant to do but never did. Every time I learn more about macro and get myself worked up about it, I end up sidetracking and getting a different lens instead.

I would suggest that you'd probably want a longer focal length macro lens than not, since (at least I would think) there are lots of obstructions in a dollhouse, and you would need the extra working distance to actually light the insides up for a nice shot.

 

More than 90% of my doll photostream is shot with Canon's 100mm f/2.8L macro lens, for very good reasons. I shoot dolls ranging from 1/6 to 1/3 scale. I settled on the 100mm as my workhorse lens because it's waterproof, has image stabilization--hugely useful for doll photography since dolls don't move, and because it is a macro lens. I don't actually use the lens in the macro focus range, since this is more magnification than is needed even for doll close-ups, but it is still worth using a macro lens for the following reason:

Macro lenses are optimized for close-distance work. This is where they were engineered to give their best optical performance. Regular non-macro prime lenses are generally optimized for larger camera-to-subject distances even if they can focus fairly closely. I bolded that last bit because it is very important. Here is a real-world example: I have a 60mm f/2.8 macro lens, and a 17-55mm f/2.8 zoom, both of which can frame a nice shot of a doll at 0.5 meters distance and focus on the subject. But the 60mm macro lens is at peak performance at this distance, whereas the 17-55mm lens at 55mm performs terribly at this distance, since its design deliberately compromises close-focus performance in favor of getting great performance at normal camera-to-full-sized-human subject distances. At 2+ meters, the 17-55mm is a champ, and it's a great general-purpose walkabout lense, but it is not an ideal doll photograpy lens. My 18-55mm kit lens ($99) actually outperforms the $1200 17-55mm lens at typical doll photography working distances. Food for thought!

If your doll is 1/3 scale, and you wish to shoot it like you would shoot a human model, you need to be 1/3 the distance from the doll that you would be to a human-sized subject to frame the same shot. Because of this, it is highly recommended to choose true macro lenses for doll and miniature photography since they perform better with close subjects, even if you never need true 1:1 reproduction.

 

One interesting option for macro is to try an older manual focus lens, since most macro is done MF anyway and used lenses are cheap. I've been thinking about getting one for a while myself, since after switching to full frame I have nothing that can focus a tight headshot on a doll.

 

For true macro range work (1:1 or close to it), yes you are going to be focusing manually, and with a DSLR, magnified live view mode is your friend here. But something to be aware of before you drop money on a manual lens that might be better spent towards an auto-focus capable lens is that a manual-focus lens is not going to very usable for normal shooting where you look through the viewfinder, on a DSLR.

DSLRs have focus screens that favor viewfinder brightness over accuracy of manual focus, and no DSLR that I know of ships with a manual focus precision matte screen or a split-center focus screen that you would need to get properly focused shots manually using the viewfinder. In short, DSLRs are made for autofocus. Most entry-level DSLRs don't even support swapping out the focus screen. And if your camera does allow for adding a manual focus screen, installing one will require you to use only fast lenses (typically f/2.8 or better) because it darkens the view too much to use lenses like consumer f/4-5.6 zooms. If you're a portrait photographer dedicating a camera body to a specific type of shooting, such a screen can be useful. But you wouldn't do this modification to your general-purpose camera.

 

It's not too bad on a full-frame body with a magnifier eyepiece (I borrowed a friend's Zeiss 100/2 and shot it on my D3 once, and had no problem getting sharp portraits), but that's obviously not the standard setup most around here will have. A MF macro lens is definitely not the best option for general purpose photography on a DX body, but you could have a nice MF 55 macro AND an AF 50 1.8 for general purpose use for half than the cost of an AF-S 60 2.8, and the 50 1.8 will be a much better general-purpose lens than the 60.

 

If I have a tripod, usually the lowest base ISO 100-200, and higher as needed to freeze motion (people, wind, water etc.). Handheld with flash, ISO 400-800 (saves flash power). Handheld with no flash, I tend to leave it on auto, ISO 100-1600.

If by "focus thingies" you mean the focus point indicators, then yes, they can be hard to see in the dark. If you have the time and are fairly steady for a manual focus shot, you can try using live view and magnify to achieve very precise focus. You might find the DOF preview button useful (near the lens mount), at least when you are not shooting wide open. On a tripod, I almost always use live view; it hurts your neck/back less.