[null]

Originally Posted by ajay_satpute

..You can start with this:
http://www.nikondigitutor.com/eng/d5200/index.html

Thanks Ajay. I have gone through those basics already while waiting for almost 2 weeks (due to holidays inbetween) for the camera ).

Originally Posted by gd1418

IMO, to try out your skills or to hone them, visiting a zoo is a very good option. The subject is uncomplaining, gives you different poses and the one gets different settings & backgrounds.

Yes. That is one good option, but I guess that has to wait as there is no zoo around. Let me play around with what is available around me (park etc).

[ampere]

Originally Posted by null

Yes. That is one good option, but I guess that has to wait as there is no zoo around. Let me play around with what is available around me (park etc).

If there are kids around try them ! One of the most difficult subjects. You get presented with ever changing moods!
And if there are nearby regions which you can drive to over weekends, try that for landscapes.

[nilanjanray]

Originally Posted by ampere

If there are kids around try them ! One of the most difficult subjects. You get presented with ever changing moods!
And if there are nearby regions which you can drive to over weekends, try that for landscapes.

@ null:

1. Kids and family - spontaneous moments
2. Zoo - if you want to shoot wildlife
3. Drive around with your camera - for landscape
4. Read the manual THOROUGHLY and practice so that you can change settings instinctively based on situation
5. Buy a guide from Thom Hogan or David Busch - and read it thoroughly. Keep revisiting.
6. Look at good photos all the time. 500px is a good start.

You have a fantastic sensor and a very capable camera - much better than what the old masters used to create those masterpieces.

[ajay_satpute]

Originally Posted by dkaile

Congrats. How's the sharpness from the prime and its closest shooting distance? Also the beautiful 'blur'?

Hi dkaile

Have a look at the photo I have uploaded on the non-auto image thread clicked using the 50mm 1.8G prime lens. http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/shifti...ml#post3218271

I feel the sharpness is pretty good and the blur, as you said, is beautiful.



Cheers!

[Gandhi]

No posts about new Sony Alpha a3000?

It's one more experiment by Sony. Their mirrorless technology with APS-C sensor into a DSLR like body at a crazy price of $399 for body + 18-55mm kit.

Check it out -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bd1n9L2m-mw#t=29

http://www.engadget.com/2013/08/27/sony-alpha-a3000/

[alpha1]

Originally Posted by Gandhi

No posts about new Sony Alpha a3000?

It's one more experiment by Sony. Their mirrorless technology with APS-C sensor into a DSLR like body at a crazy price of $399 for body + 18-55mm kit.



http://www.engadget.com/2013/08/27/sony-alpha-a3000/

What's the point?
But then I understand quite a lot of ppl prefer the heft of the DSLR. I guess this may appeal to them ... but then again many of those ppl also prefer an optical viewfinder ...

Oh well you can't please all the people all the time.

[Gandhi]

Originally Posted by alpha1

What's the point?
But then I understand quite a lot of ppl prefer the heft of the DSLR. I guess this may appeal to them ... but then again many of those ppl also prefer an optical viewfinder ...

Oh well you can't please all the people all the time.

I think the point here is to attract first time buyers coming from prosumer cameras. At this price point, it's cheaper than some prosumer zoom cameras. This won't attract people who are already using DSLR or mirrorless cameras.

Initial photos from that sensor look good.

[aim120]

The A3000 is aimed at Americans who want everything bigger.Many customers still feel they should get a DSLR and that mirrorless is just a point and shoot.So its those people Sony is targeting.

For MSRP $399 there isn't any other cam thats going to come close to the Image quality of this.
Cameras like the RX100 and Canon G series are a rip off.

[alpha1]

Originally Posted by aim120

The A3000 is aimed at Americans who want everything bigger.Many customers still feel they should get a DSLR and that mirrorless is just a point and shoot.So its those people Sony is targeting.

Agreed. Though however idiotic it may appear to be, but unfortunately that's how it is. To the point of making it inconvenient.
I mean the mirrorless technology came about to REDUCE the heft, and we have crazy americans who would have nothing but Cadillac sized cameras just to appease their egos!

Funny thing is that most such hefty cams just become museum pieces for homes after the initial craziness wears off.

For MSRP $399 there isn't any other cam thats going to come close to the Image quality of this.
Cameras like the RX100 and Canon G series are a rip off.

Actually they are not.
Its a misconception that high end "prosumers" are rip off while low end SLRs are not. The image sensor of a low end DSLR offers about 2 stop advantage. (which means ISO 1600 = highest acceptable in DSLR, whereas ISO 400 = highest acceptable in prosumer).

But we forget one thing. The lens. The lens of a prosumer offers 2 stop advantage over the stock lens that comes with the low end DSLRs. Net effect?
Pretty much balances out.

[Sawyer]

Originally Posted by aim120

For MSRP $399 there isn't any other cam thats going to come close to the Image quality of this.
Cameras like the RX100 and Canon G series are a rip off.

I don't know about the Canon, but I have a rx100ii. Expensive yes, rip off no. Except in the sense that it will be available about 25% cheaper in a year.
Image quality comes into play only if you have an image. And for that, you need to have a camera on you - which is where the tiny Sony scores. Easy to keep in a little case on the trouser belt, and therefore much more likely to be at hand when a picture taking opportunity presents itself.

[aim120]

Originally Posted by Sawyer

I don't know about the Canon, but I have a rx100ii. Expensive yes, rip off no. Except in the sense that it will be available about 25% cheaper in a year.
Image quality comes into play only if you have an image. And for that, you need to have a camera on you - which is where the tiny Sony scores. Easy to keep in a little case on the trouser belt, and therefore much more likely to be at hand when a picture taking opportunity presents itself.

I know for the size nothing comes close to the RX100/MK2.But one would feel that Sony has overpriced it badly, now that Sony own A3000 has a EVF,Higher capacity battery,bigger sensor and yet its cheaper by some $300. It also sets the image quality vs price bench mark(I doubt any of the more expensive canon APS-C cameras can match this in Image Quality).

A RX100 at a price of $500 will sound reasonable,considering the design challenges of making it compact.

[Sawyer]

Originally Posted by aim120

A RX100 at a price of $500 will sound reasonable,considering the design challenges of making it compact.

Available for that price - about Rs 31k - in India now. As a take everywhere camera of high image quality, it is unmatched at this time.

[joslicx]

Is this the future of consumer DSLR:

http://www.phonearena.com/news/Samsu...ce-tag_id46875

Samsung surely are trying to be the disrupters in this space! This could be very interesting really.

[govigov]

Canon announced price hike. Few places have older stock, so if anyone is buying, you may do so fast.

[R2D2]

Nikon has redone or refreshed its website layout. They followed suit with a 5-6% hike across all products in the DSLR and lens range. Prices were effective yesterday 31/8. Most dealers are now selling at new prices.