So a little background: After weeks of researching, analyzing, and then over-analyzing which camera to purchase as a first DSLR, I finally went with the Nikon D5300. Some of you may remember my earlier thread (https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1748236/). Now that I’m back from my trip and have spent some time with the camera, here are some of my initial thoughts and concerns.
While I attribute this first point to a lack of skill and technique, overall I am largely disappointed and underwhelmed by the images I am seeing straight from the camera. This had caused me to briefly question my decision, but after re-watching several reviews on YouTube, I think I just need to learn how to better use my camera. I made the mistake of relying too much on Auto mode, and, as a result, highlights are blown out in almost every picture I took with ice and snow, landscapes with large cloud cover are poorly balanced, colors sometimes seem oversaturated, and so on. Rainy, foggy, cloudy conditions make everything more difficult. No surprise. This was especially true when I visited Iceland, and Alaska was no different. My iPhone 5s performed poorly as well. When conditions are well lit, the current iSight camera shines. Capturing great images is easy. Again, probably no surprise. But trying to successfully capture the very unique lighting, or lack thereof, of glacial mountaintops, while dealing with inclement weather, or even overcast conditions, sort of rendered the iPhone useless (at least in my current capacity of understanding how best to use this camera). I tried experimenting with post-processing in Lightroom, but am new to that as well, and have thus far achieved minor results. For reference, I will try to post some images later. Does anyone know if there are any setting configurations that are optimal for Nikon cameras? I thought I had read somewhere over on the dpreview forums that exposure for one should be lowered.
To make matters worse, I also dropped my camera while dog-sledding. I should have left it behind that time, and although I had thought of doing that, I did not. In the very first few seconds of moving forward on the sled, I lost my balance, standing on a piece of the sled that is connected from behind by a rope, and completed wiped out. I fell and tumbled onto the ground and my camera was completed covered in snow and ice, with the memory card cover opened and slightly cracked. I immediately took my camera to one of the tents in the base camp and tried my best to dry it as best I could. While I was very unnerved about the incident, especially after only owning the camera for a few weeks, everything seemed to worked fine afterwards. I had my Sigma 10-20mm attached at the time, luckily, and not the more expensive 18-140mm kit lens. I still think it would be wise for me to take my camera to a local camera shop and have it professionally looked at. I plan on purchasing a replacement SD cover as well just to give me greater peace of mind. It frequently rained in some form or another (e.g. drizzle, mist, light snow) to which my camera, along with those of others, was exposed to. I tried my best to shield and minimize rain exposure, but my camera definitely got wet at times.
So I underestimated the elements, the weather, my competency, but also the gear I brought along. Yes, 140mm was no where near enough range for trying to photograph wildlife. After awhile, I kind of gave up on the effort altogether. Subjects were just too far away. I managed to snap some shots, but always at the 140mm mark, and even then, the animals were still just objects in the distance. Being as I'm more interested in landscape over wildlife photography, I wasn't tremendously disheartened though.
At the moment, I am considering picking up the 35mm f/1.8g as it is relatively inexpensive, compact, light, and supposedly provides excellent clarity and low light performance. Something I really want to focus on now that I'm back home is product photography, or photographing technology and my workspace. Unfortunately, my workplace isn't very lit well by natural light so taking decent pictures is somewhat challenging. One thing that particularly concerns me is that I'm beginning to invest quite a bit in the Nikon DX series. Not saying that's a bad thing, just that I'm really getting rooted in one particular camera system so it may be hard to switch over to something else in the future if I would ever want to do so. But since I am considering picking up a prime lens, would it make any sense to opt for a full frame version in the rare event that I would one day want to go with a full frame body?
Before and after some crude Lightroom processing
ISO 200, 18 mm, f/10, 1/400 sec
Straight off the camera
ISO 400, 20 mm, f/11, 1/500 sec
Straight off the camera
ISO 200, 20 mm, f/11, 1/640 sec
Straight off the camera
ISO 200, 15 mm, f/10, 1/400 sec
While I attribute this first point to a lack of skill and technique, overall I am largely disappointed and underwhelmed by the images I am seeing straight from the camera. This had caused me to briefly question my decision, but after re-watching several reviews on YouTube, I think I just need to learn how to better use my camera. I made the mistake of relying too much on Auto mode, and, as a result, highlights are blown out in almost every picture I took with ice and snow, landscapes with large cloud cover are poorly balanced, colors sometimes seem oversaturated, and so on. Rainy, foggy, cloudy conditions make everything more difficult. No surprise. This was especially true when I visited Iceland, and Alaska was no different. My iPhone 5s performed poorly as well. When conditions are well lit, the current iSight camera shines. Capturing great images is easy. Again, probably no surprise. But trying to successfully capture the very unique lighting, or lack thereof, of glacial mountaintops, while dealing with inclement weather, or even overcast conditions, sort of rendered the iPhone useless (at least in my current capacity of understanding how best to use this camera). I tried experimenting with post-processing in Lightroom, but am new to that as well, and have thus far achieved minor results. For reference, I will try to post some images later. Does anyone know if there are any setting configurations that are optimal for Nikon cameras? I thought I had read somewhere over on the dpreview forums that exposure for one should be lowered.
To make matters worse, I also dropped my camera while dog-sledding. I should have left it behind that time, and although I had thought of doing that, I did not. In the very first few seconds of moving forward on the sled, I lost my balance, standing on a piece of the sled that is connected from behind by a rope, and completed wiped out. I fell and tumbled onto the ground and my camera was completed covered in snow and ice, with the memory card cover opened and slightly cracked. I immediately took my camera to one of the tents in the base camp and tried my best to dry it as best I could. While I was very unnerved about the incident, especially after only owning the camera for a few weeks, everything seemed to worked fine afterwards. I had my Sigma 10-20mm attached at the time, luckily, and not the more expensive 18-140mm kit lens. I still think it would be wise for me to take my camera to a local camera shop and have it professionally looked at. I plan on purchasing a replacement SD cover as well just to give me greater peace of mind. It frequently rained in some form or another (e.g. drizzle, mist, light snow) to which my camera, along with those of others, was exposed to. I tried my best to shield and minimize rain exposure, but my camera definitely got wet at times.
So I underestimated the elements, the weather, my competency, but also the gear I brought along. Yes, 140mm was no where near enough range for trying to photograph wildlife. After awhile, I kind of gave up on the effort altogether. Subjects were just too far away. I managed to snap some shots, but always at the 140mm mark, and even then, the animals were still just objects in the distance. Being as I'm more interested in landscape over wildlife photography, I wasn't tremendously disheartened though.
At the moment, I am considering picking up the 35mm f/1.8g as it is relatively inexpensive, compact, light, and supposedly provides excellent clarity and low light performance. Something I really want to focus on now that I'm back home is product photography, or photographing technology and my workspace. Unfortunately, my workplace isn't very lit well by natural light so taking decent pictures is somewhat challenging. One thing that particularly concerns me is that I'm beginning to invest quite a bit in the Nikon DX series. Not saying that's a bad thing, just that I'm really getting rooted in one particular camera system so it may be hard to switch over to something else in the future if I would ever want to do so. But since I am considering picking up a prime lens, would it make any sense to opt for a full frame version in the rare event that I would one day want to go with a full frame body?
Before and after some crude Lightroom processing
ISO 200, 18 mm, f/10, 1/400 sec
Straight off the camera
ISO 400, 20 mm, f/11, 1/500 sec
Straight off the camera
ISO 200, 20 mm, f/11, 1/640 sec
Straight off the camera
ISO 200, 15 mm, f/10, 1/400 sec
Last edited:
