New Camera Help

[silentchild]

From memory it was about aperture 4 to 4.5. Thank you for the tip, I notice too that backgrounds look more blur if I am up real close! My dog is not too impressed by this, LOL. I will have to practise more and find good places to shoot!

With ISO, is it generally that the lower the ISO, the better, as higher ISOs are more grainy??

[Spoony]

So much awesome info in this thread, weld done Snook and others!

Haven't recently also acquired a Nikon body to compliment my Fuji gear (see my other thread) I'd support what a few others have mentioned regarding a 70-200 2.8, however suggest finding a good used one, and NOT a Nikon, just go Tamron. If you look at reviews and back to back test (ie on DXOMark) there is nothing it really accept the costs. You'll be able to pick a second hand one up for under $1000 easy (or $1350 new) . Still not cheap but will give you great results even on the entry level body. It's also the smallest and lightest 70-200 2.8 vs Nikon and Canon's offerings, but it still is a heavy beast and will look as such especially on the front of D3300.

Being APSC the D3300 won't get quite this level bokeh in the example below, but it will still work nicely and plenty enough for most situations to give nice isolation. As for a short lens to go along with it, I'd first think of how you'll shoot. The 70-200mm will still work well for portraits you'll just need some space from the subject. If you want to shoot portraits closer then on an APSC body I would recommend a fast prime. If you don't need the speed for low light and shallow DOF for portraits at the short end then a normal zoom (ie upto 70mm) might be more practical and also be useful as a general travel lens. You may not want to lug a 70-200 2.8 around travelling.

Striker on the boardwalk by Dan P, on Flickr

[silentchild]

Thanks Spoony! That's a gorgeous photo! And I really appreciate your advice on the lens. I'll keep my eye out for secondhand Tamrons.

Yes I have been thinking the 70-200 will be quite a large lens for me to lug around! I have been considering what would be the best lens to take hiking and on bushwalks and the beach, as I suspect those type of excursions will be when I will want to take the most photos. The 70-200 might be a bit too big for that, but I'm not sure a prime lens would be ok for those type of situations too when I'd probably need some level of zoom whilst still maintaining a nice blurry background for portraits. Decisions, decisions...

[Spoony]

Cheers :)

Yes the 2.8 zooms are quite size-able. I think that one without the tripod foot 1300 odd grams!

The problem is with what you're trying too do and wanting shallow DOF and subject isolation, the only easy way you'll achieve it in most settings, especially on an APSC size sensor body is with faster lenses. So shorter primes or 2.8 zooms.

So getting slow wide range zoom isn't going to give you much blur unless there is quite a bit of space behind the subject, helps also if they are closer relative to the space behind.

For me it's best to work out what focal length you need for different situations. Ie you may only use the longer zoom, say a 70-200 2.8 for action shots and similar of your dog(s), perhaps at the beach etc where it isn't too bad to lug around for a bit vs hiking. Where as hiking you may find yourself not need a long zoom at all? Though if you come across wildlife they are handy, and in this case you'll usually already want that lens on to begin with. This is where a large focal range zoom is handy, but unfortunately doesn't offer the easy bokeh you're chasing.

You can get shorter range 2.8 zooms 17-50mm just of APSC bodies, so they are compact and not overly pricey (ie if you're happy with grey market under $300). It could be a consideration coupled with a 70-200?

This would give a fairly practical walk around lens, while not 'prime' fast or likely as sharp, would give good wide angle for landscapes etc, and also still able to take closer range potraits and through the background a bit in the correct setting.

http://www.tamron.com.au/di-ii17-50_a16.html

Always keep in mind that the shorter the focal length, generally faster the the lens needs to be the throw the background. Ie a long slow zoom can still give heaps of blur if you allow reasonable of space behind the subject, and keep the subject as close as possible to you. You can't achieve this with a short focal length so much unless you have a really fast lens.

So with a bit of planning and the right locations and placement you can achieve good things, it just takes more thinking and work :)

One thing to also consider is if you want to shoot your dogs in action is shutter speed. You're going to need 1/640 + at minimum, generally I use at least 1/800th. Is is really going to push the ISO anytime there isn't bright light, even just mid/late arvo is enough to do this on a slow lens. So think of the faster lenses and zooms not just offering you better bokeh but also allowing you to shoot the action over great times of the day and when the lighting is becoming nicer too.

An example using a very slow zoom on an APSC body, still some nice blur as the subject fills the frame and isn't too far away, a fair amount of zoom is used and also the background is further away.

ISO 800, 1/800th F 6.4 172mm

Ebony - Animal Rescue Queensland by Dan P, on Flickr

Edited November 16, 2015 by Spoony