Nikon D3200 Bundle from Target

[alex_polimeni]

<p>Hello<br>

I am seriously considering buying the Nikon D3200 with the 18-55mm and 55-200mm lenses. I was looking at it and wondering if both lenses included had Vibration Reduction or if it was just the 18-55mm lens. Also, is this a good camera for a somewhat beginner or should I look at a different DSLR. Point and Shoots are out of the picture, I really need a DSLR especially for my photography of rocket launches. I think the 4 frames per second will be suitable for this purpose.<br>

Thank you!<br>

http://www.target.com/p/nikon-d3200-24-2mp-digital-slr-camera-with-18-55mm-and-55-200mm-lenses-black/-/A-14962596#prodSlot=medium_1_2&term=Nikon+D3200</p>

[richsimmons]

4 frames per second for rocket launch is not that great actually if you're talking model rockets. The camera itself is just a

step up from a point and shoot, so maybe you might want to go up one more with the d5300 (or a d5200).. The lenses in

the link are VR in the photo, but they don't really say. They probably are though. That's the usual kit.

[alex_polimeni]

<p>Thank you for responding! I am shooting real launches from Cape Canaveral and Vandenberg Air Force Station, and also some photos of the processing facilities I get access to. Is it really just a step above a point and shoot? I do use a friend's camera which is a Canon Rebel EOS XSi. Is it any better than this?</p>

[Jerry_]

<p>You might check the Internet (B+H Photo and Adorama) for a refurbished Nikon D5100 body. It will hold more shots in the buffer over the D3200 body. Lenses are a toss up. The AF-S VR 55-300mm Nikkkor has a bit more reach over the 55-200mm lens.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>For full-size rocket launches, I'd have thought the true 60p video of the D5300 with GPS, WiFi etc would be suitable. On a tripod @ the long end of the lens should be fine. However, Jerry's lens suggestion is a good one. That bit more reach is never a bad thing. </p>

<p>For walk around in lab facilities you might find something wider is more useful. I'm not so sure of the current wide-zoom line-up, but I'm sure someone will chip in!</p>

<p>I managed to find a customer return D5300 inc 18-55mm for £400 ~($630) and it's a lovely camera. The fold out screen will make high angle framing easier too.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>The camera itself is just a step up from a point and shoot</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's a lot better than most P&S cameras. The D3200 is in fact a very well rounded camera. Its 11 pts AF system is frequently knocked as not being enough for action. I've used cameras with this AF system, and it's not all doom. In good light, it works, and pretty well too.<br>

That said, the D5200 and D5300 have improved AF which should perform noticeably better.</p>

<p>The 55-200 without VR has not been produced for years, so 99,5% sure it is the VR version. Keep in mind though that for high action shots with high shutter speeds, VR is of very limited value.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>The body is more than adequate but depending on where you are viewing/shooting from, 200mm may not be long enough. Are you going to located in a VIP viewing area or shooting from the beach or similar public location?</p>

<p>You will need to check the actual item to see if the 55-200mm has VR. The kit generally comes with the non VR version it is impossible to tell from the Target listing and photo.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>I'd actually be tempted to look at the Nikon 1 V1 and a longish lens (possibly even using the FT1 adaptor with a DSLR lens). While it has very good autofocus for what it is, you probably don't actually need that for a rocket launch - but it has very high pixel density (good reach with a long lens) and can capture at full (10MP) resolution at 60fps. It'll only do it for half a second (30 frames), but that may be critical as the launch begins - <i>if</i> you get the timing rite. (It'll also go much faster if you don't mind dropping the resolution a lot.) I see Adorama has one available refurbished, if you don't like KEH. They're a bit pricier new.<br />

<br />

The small sensor will be less good if you're wandering around in low light or want to isolate a subject for general photography. A lot of people like their 1-series cameras, but they're a bit specialist for serious use - I got mine solely for the rare occasions when I need this kind of speed. For general use, a D3200 is a very good camera. The D5x00 series is slightly more polished, but if you want the extra resolution for capturing distant launches, there's something to be said for the 24MP sensor.<br />

<br />

Over a longer launch, I suspect the buffer size (for a DSLR or for a 1-series) may be less relevant than how quickly you can write the images to a card (not many cameras can keep going at full frame rate for a couple of minutes). So I'd get at least a UHS-1 card, and I'd look at the timings that DPReview do as part of their camera reviews in case there's a significant difference between cards. If you can manage the exposure (and that may be difficult in a rocket launch - you may want the dynamic range of a raw file to recover the very bright bits of the exhaust) then you might get a much longer sequence by shooting in JPEG, especially at a lower resolution.<br />

<br />

Or you could hire a D4s, capture the entire sequence, and see how the big boys live. But the hiring may cost more than buying one of the other cameras we've discussed...<br />

<br />

Incidentally, have you considered using a small telescope (of the kind that birders use) and using a camera phone to take a video through the eyepiece? Several phones can do a decent 1080p, and pulling frames out of that can be surprisingly usable. It's not uncommon to take shots of the moon the same way, and you'll get reach that's hard to achieve with a cheap lens. This might take you into expensive tripods and heads, but you might still find something acceptable that's cheaper than the DSLR route. You won't have much flexibility if you want to zoom out and capture the cloud of exhaust gasses, of course.<br />

<br />

Good luck. I always wanted to see a launch, and I'm a bit annoyed that I never made it to see a shuttle take off. (This means, of course, that all my suggestions are just thoughts and not from experience of doing this. Take that under advisement!)</p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>Unless you have a rare permission to get close to the launch, I believe you will disappointed in this particular application by a maximum focal length of 200mm or even 300mm on a DX camera. The suggestion above to get a Nikon 1 V1 is excellent. Combine it with a 70-300mm VR lens, and you'll have a much better set-up for photographing launches.</p>

<p>Some people have used spotting scopes with cameras, but it is a very fussy combination, and the aperture is tiny.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>I thank you, Hector - I'm glad my idea made sense to someone! It almost makes up for me deciding to spell "right" as "rite", something which will no doubt be associated with my mental faculties on this forum forever. While there's probably some magic to shooting the right half-second of the launch with a V1, I didn't mean to suggest actual spell work should be necessary. I have no idea why I suddenly decided to spell phonetically.<br />

<br />

Speaking as a linguistic pedant, I shall now go and flay myself. Or at least stick my head in a bucket. I apologies to the entire internet.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<blockquote>

<p> It almost makes up for me deciding to spell "right" as "rite"</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p><em>"Swish and Flick"</em>...(H.G in H.P)....:-) ....and is that an empty bucket or one full of ice-water? The mammalian diving reflex is a wonderful thing, but don't overdo it!</p>

<p>I've always thought the 1 Series with the new 80-400mm AFS VR would make an excellent long range birding set-up via the FT-1. Might look a bit odd, but with the tripod mount on the main lens it should balance OK.</p>

[2Oceans]

<p>Alex, Given the distance you will be from the subject and the shutter speeds and apertures you can use in day light the D3200 can handle the load. With ISO 400 and aperture set at f8 you should be able to shoot at 1600th of a second, using the sunny 16 rule. This will well overcome camera shake and the need to use VR and should freeze subject motion. Given your working distance from the subject at f8 or even f 5.6 you would be well within the hyper focal distance of the lens and capture sharp images of a launch. While the d3200 body is less robust than some better models the particular sensor on this camera will give you professional quality images and fantastic resolution that is better than the best DX Cameras from 5 years ago. I think the D3200 can probably keep up with what you want it to do. I own this body along with a D800e and D3s. My 9 year old DX body is a D2X and does not have near as good a sensor. If you are shooting a friend's Canon Rebel you may find this camera even better. The D3200 has a buffer that will handle 100 continuous images when shooting 4 frames a second and 16 continuous raw images at 4 frames a second. Good hunting.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>While the perception is that the V1 gets you closer, the reality is that it does not. 200mm or 300mm on the V1 gets you equally as close as the same focal length on a DX body or FX body.</p>

<p>And unless you are a VIP, you typically cannot even see the actual launches at the Cape (depends on the launch pad used and the viewing location).</p>

<p>I am not familiar with Vandenburg AFB but would assume the viewing situation is he same.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Elliot, that's very true...but I'd much prefer my rocket to be made from 200 pixels rather than 20*....:-)</p>

<p>...and of course, if it's video it's going to get downsized/downsampled anyway. Even 4K is about 8MP.</p>

<p>Pixel size and density do matter** and you'll be using the sweetest centre-only portion of the lens where the resolving power of the lens is always at it highest....better for DX and even better for CX....which suits the higher pixel density.</p>

<p>* I'm exaggerating somewhat but the maths eludes me at the mo'.</p>

<p>** Never mattered in the days of film because grain size was grain size, the only variable was produced by ASA/ISO where higher meant bigger, often much bigger.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Agreed that the pixel density advantage of the V1 over the D3200 isn't all that great - after a quick google, we're looking at 296 pixels per mm on the V1 and 259 pixels per mm on the D3200. If you want more, the V3 gets you up to 396 pixels per mm (if your lens can resolve that), but costs a lot more. I was really arguing for the frame rate merits of the 1 series rather than reach. If you're spending that kind of money, you could make a good argument for a D7100, which has a crop mode...<br />

<br />

There's no substitute for good, long glass, but sadly it all gets very expensive beyond about 300mm. (The 300mm f/4 + a teleconverter is considered to be a good budget option to getting longer, with the new 80-400mm also up there; both these options cost several times more than the cameras we're discussing.)<br />

<br />

For amusement, you might like a look at <a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/a-bit-of-3250mm-fun">this post</a>. I've heard of people using very big glass for rocket launches - it's quite a good reason to have a 1200-1700 Nikkor - but there really comes a point when holding a camera phone to a telescope looks like a sensible option.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Andrew, nice link!</p>

<p>..and the D800 has about 200 pixels per mm.</p>

<p>So, a V3 is going to give you 4x the pixels per unit area of sensor? Is that right? More coffee...less wine!</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Yup, 4x the D800. Obviously, the new 400mm prime is your friend if you want to resolve anything. I may at some point be tempted to get an FT-1 for my V1 (thus doubling what I spent on it), but at the moment I use a GF2 for pixel density if I'm using my telescope for something small. (About £400 for a 1200mm f/4.7 "lens", but a bit tricky to cart around or aim at a moving target.) I use the D800 for deep skies - or I do on the rare occasions I get the free time to take my scope outside.<br />

<br />

Re. the link, I was trying to find a photo I've seen of a huge medium format lens being used for a rocket launch (although "OKC2-1000-1" turns up something interesting on a well-known auction site, and it vaguely resembles a huge lens I've seen in the window of Aperture UK). That was the best I could do.<br />

<br />

But to veer back onto topic, I <i>did</i> find <a href="http://www.spacearchive.info/vafbphoto.htm">this</a> about shooting rocket launches, which may contain some useful information if Alex isn't already aware of it. [Edit: I've now had a read of that link. Take some of it with a pinch of salt, especially the assertion that ISO 1600 film will give better quality than a lot of digital cameras. I'm surprised the link is from 2012... But I agree that lenses longer than 400mm tend to get a bit tricky to aim.]</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>If the V3 has 396 pixels per mm, what resolution figures does a lens need to make full use of those pixels?</p>

<p>The 70-200mm VRII manages ~48 lpmm in the centre, not sure about the longer primes.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Sorry to interrupt the pixel-calculations, but the OP actually already shot launches (as per his second post) with a entry-level Canon DSLR; maybe the OP can check which lens he used on the Canon to understand whether or not 200 or 300 mm makes the right choice for a D3200.<br>

Nikon 1 is a tempting system for this, but practically not all that much cheaper.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Oops - thank you for the grounding, Wouter. And yes, the 1 series certainly wasn't supposed to be a cost-saving option, just something not ridiculously expensive that might give frame rate (and to a lesser extent, reach).<br />

<br />

The Canon XSi sensor is very slightly smaller than the D3200's, but probably not by so much that it's worth considering the difference in deciding which lenses are appropriate. The question for Alex is whether similar shots are what is wanted, or whether to get something different.</p>

[alex_polimeni]

<p>Hello<br /> Thank you for all the responses! I have been looking at the different lens options and I think the 200mm lens will suffice, since the viewing location for the Antares I will be at is around 1.6 miles from the pad, which is extremely close. For future launches from the Cape and Vandenberg, where I am VIP but a little further, I think I will buy a 2x telephoto extender for the 200mm lens to bring it to 400mm. Honestly, based on the distance, I think 100mm would suffice based on photos I have seen from there.<br /> I was hoping this camera would be more advanced than the Canon, because the resolution on that is not always that good with a long telephoto. At 300mm for a Cape launch, it came out a bit pixelated in my opinion. Now that I think about it, I need to use a tripod next time. That's probably the problem. The photos of the launch are here- http://alexpolimeniphotography.weebly.com/nro-l-67.html<br /> After viewing the pictures, I though I could get a little closer, so that's why I am going to buy the 2x extender. That viewing site is right on the roof of their rocket processing facility 4 miles from the pad. Also, I though the pad photos from the Canon came out a bit dark, so maybe it is a color balance issue.<br /> And thanks for the suggestion for the no-mirror Nikon, but I think I need a viewfinder. For wide angle photos, what kind of mm lens will suffice?</p><div></div>

[alex_polimeni]

<p>Photo of launch</p><div></div>

[mike_halliwell]

<blockquote>

<p>For wide angle photos, what kind of mm lens will suffice?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I've got the older Sigma 10-20mm f4/5.6 for such things. The newer constant f3.5 variant is somewhat sharper, but has weirder distortion.</p>

<p>With a 10mm you can stand in the corner of a room* and see both adjacent walls...:-)<br>

<br>

*square not round!</p>

[2Oceans]

Alex, using an extender might soften up your images especially on an relatively inexpensive zoom. I would recommend

against using an extender with your kit lens. I would be inclined to go with a 70-300 zoom if you need more reach. Also

remember your shutter speed is key because the vibration your getting from the launch site will cause problems. Hand

holding a smaller lens with adequate shutter speed will do a better job of uncoupling the vibration of a launch. I am

impressed that you get to be so close.

[mike_halliwell]

<blockquote>

<p>At 300mm for a Cape launch, it came out a bit pixelated in my opinion.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not sure you mean pixelated, because the focal length has no effect on that what-so-ever..... only digitally, as opposed to optically, zooming-in does that. <br>

<br>

Now if you have to crop the shot to make the rocket bigger and then you see the pixels, that's digitally zooming in!<br>

<br>

The 'fuzziness' looks like heat shimmer to me.<br>

<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Also remember your shutter speed is key because the<em><strong> vibration your getting from the launch site</strong></em> will cause problems.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>He's going to be more than 1.6 <strong><em>MILES</em></strong> away...WOW, that must be some ground shake...:-)<br>

<br>

Shot 2, the launch was taken with a 75-300mm @ 300mm @ f8 @ 1/2500 ISO 400 on a Canon EOS XSi....in April this year. The exposure is about right but the sensor needs a clean...there's dark blobs in the sky!<br>

</p>