What should I buy next?

[Lazarus52980]

Please help me to decide what I need next. I currently own one camera body and 2 lenses. I own a Nikon D5200, a Nikon 35mm 1.8g DX lens, and a Nikon 70-200mm 2.8g VRII lens. I do not currently have an external flash, or a tripod.

Ok, some background to help with this: The main reason I took up photography was to photograph my children, so most of my photos are "action" photos, with little or no time to setup. I intend to do a little bit of portrait work when I get around to having a tripod.

My current frustration has been with regard not being able to take decent photos of the kids due to having to be too far away when using the 70-200mm, and then not being able to "follow" them well when using the prime 35mm. However I have also had frustration with poor lighting and not getting good photos that way that lead me to wanting a remote flash setup (however it might also be good to get a "commander" camera before getting a remote flash setup with Pocket Wizards...)

I have some tax money that I am intending to invest into photography equipment that totals about $1800. What should I purchase? My considerations are as follows (And I guess I will make a poll out of this):

Nikon D610 FX camera body (Unless someone can make a compelling enough argument to convince me to invest in a D800)

Nikon SB 910 with two Pocket Wizard transceivers and other needed remote flash equipment

Nikon 24-70mm 2.8G FX lens

A very high quality (meaning I won't have to replace it later) tripod and tripod head.

 

[desura]

1. Get the lens. D5200 is a...better body than I have.

2. Get an eye-fi card. Easily the best convenience I've gotten in a DSLR.

 

[zCypher]

a good lighting setup would help tons for sure. I also have the D5200, but only with the kit lens. it's a pretty decent camera I think, I wouldn't invest in more camera unless your photography skills are really being held back by a lack of features or performance that only a significantly more expensive camera would offer -- but this is probably not the case.

i will second the opinion of getting a better lens, but again I only have a kit lens and am just now starting to think more about different lenses more seriously. thanks for the eye-fi card idea desura, i didn't even realize they made those. that sounds awesome..

 

[CuriousMike]

My current frustration has been with regard not being able to take decent photos of the kids due to having to be too far away when using the 70-200mm, and then not being able to "follow" them well when using the prime 35mm.

I'm reading that as "my main frustration" - if that is the case, then the lens sounds like the answer.

Your other options sound good, but
a) The new body, while likely giving you better photos in some situations, won't help your main frustration. What good is that? If you get the lens now, you'll enjoy it's benefits for years to come -- and when you find that used D610 for a steal, you can click the 24-70 onto it immediately.

b) The lighting setup and tripod won't address your main frustration --- and those sounds like easier things to pick up down the road or at your next tax return.

I've been using an Eye-Fi for about a year now and I've had good luck with it.
I shoot Raw+Basic, and have the Eye-Fi uploading just the basic JPG's to my phone (which in turn gets backed up to G+ at x2048 resolution, so you can have infinite backups.) The basic JPG's are IMO totally fine for viewing on the phone. I still use it in a card reader when transferring (the raws) to my PC.

 

[imported_Irse]

What are you using the 70-200 for? If you don't really need it, sell it and get the 24-70 or something comparable.

Also do you need to buy new? I've bought used flashes (SB800) before and didn't have any problems. Yo could get a SB 800 for half the price. I would pair it with a SU 800 commander.

What will you be using the tripod for? Landscape or just portraits? Make sure you get a good one but don't have to over do it. Don't necessarily need a Gitzo.

Be somewhat frugal but buy quality stuff and spend the left over money on you kids or save it for them.

 

[Paladin3]

70-200/2.8 is one of the best lens to shoot kids on the move with, especially outside. 70mm on a crop body inside isn't that long. Back up a bit and practice tracking them. It's not easy and takes skill, but you need to develop that skill as no new lens will magically provide it. Don't be afraid to shoot bunches to get a few winners. Serious photographers work to make images, they don't snap quickly and expect each shot to be a winner. Good photography takes skill and work.

A tripod is not necessary to take portraits. I worked as a newspaper photojournalist in Los Angeles for 13 years and only owned cheap ones for use when my shutter speed was too slow for me to handhold. Most portrait photographers work without a tripod, as it just roots you in one spot and limits your creativity in 95% of shooting situations.

A good TTL flash is mandatory, IMHO. As long as it swivels and tilts for bouncing you can use it on-camera to fantastic effect. It doesn't necessarily have to be an expensive one, just powerful enough to bounce some light around. Direct strobe basically sucks, so be creative in your bouncing. You don't need pocket wizards to take good flash photos. Keep your kit simple and learn how to use a single bounced strobe mixed with the available light before you move on to anything more complicated.

Screw upgrading your camera. There is zero reason and you will benefit more from a flash and improving your skills.

After adding a flash, my next recommendation would be for you to buy a wide zoom. Even something like a kit 18-55mm would add a lot of flexibility to your photography. An f/2.8 wide zoom would be even better. 24mm on a crop body isn't wide enough for me, but might be for you.

Good luck, keep shooting and I envy you and your $1800 budget.

 

[iGas]

It sounded like you need to read the manual.

Try using AF-F, Subject-tracking AF, or AF-C with aperture priority (set at f2.8 or f4), or shutter priority. And, bump the ISO up to get at least 1/250s or faster if the kids are stationary with little to no movement, and at least 1/750s to 1/1000s if the kids are moving and 1/1000~1/1500 if they are playing.
With one of the following lens 17/18-50mm f2.8 Tamron/Sigma or 17-55mm f2.8 Nikkor. And, learn to use the flash for stop motion & fill.

IMHO, the 70-200mm is a good lens for a FF body, but it is a bit long for an APS-C body. With the 70-200mm You will need to be 20 feet or more away from the subject to frame 6 feet height.

 

[iGas]

Below is an image that I took 2 weeks ago in over cast condition (the 4-5 years old kids are having a practice game, hence it was possible to use such a short focal length, bigger kids play full field where a 300-500mm lens would be perfect for FF body). Canon 5D MkII, 100mm L, 1/1000s, f3.5, ISO 400, Shutter Priority, AI-Servo, Continuous, Center focus point (old school), manual WB, handheld, and the image is cropped. I forgot to charged the battery and got off only 26 shots before it ran out of juice (1 shots was in single shot mode), and the camera nailed the focus for 23 shots out of 25 shots in AI-Servo/Continuous.

And, good luck with your purchasing decision.

 

[Lazarus52980]

What are you using the 70-200 for? If you don't really need it, sell it and get the 24-70 or something comparable.

Also do you need to buy new? I've bought used flashes (SB800) before and didn't have any problems. Yo could get a SB 800 for half the price. I would pair it with a SU 800 commander.

What will you be using the tripod for? Landscape or just portraits? Make sure you get a good one but don't have to over do it. Don't necessarily need a Gitzo.

Be somewhat frugal but buy quality stuff and spend the left over money on you kids or save it for them.

Ok, answering the questions in order:

Well, I would LIKE to use the 70-200 mostly for taking photos of the kids when we are outside, and they are playing sports. Without a decent "mid" zoom, I am using it for more than I had intended, but I do feel like I "need" it (just maybe not so much in winter).

No, I have no particular reason to buy new when it comes to flashes. I simply felt that I would likely get the item that would last the longest for my needs if I purchased it new

The tripod would be mostly for portraits, but I would also do some video, and some landscape stuff, depending on what the family is doing at the time (I can see using it when we do Cub Scout activities). The reason I was set on "high end" was because a friend of mine who does a lot of photography told me that most people end up buying 3 tripods because they buy a cheap one, outgrow it, buy a medium one, don't like it, then buy the one they should have at the beginning. I was trying to avoid that cycle...

 

[Lazarus52980]

70-200/2.8 is one of the best lens to shoot kids on the move with, especially outside. 70mm on a crop body inside isn't that long. Back up a bit and practice tracking them. It's not easy and takes skill, but you need to develop that skill as no new lens will magically provide it. Don't be afraid to shoot bunches to get a few winners. Serious photographers work to make images, they don't snap quickly and expect each shot to be a winner. Good photography takes skill and work.

A tripod is not necessary to take portraits. I worked as a newspaper photojournalist in Los Angeles for 13 years and only owned cheap ones for use when my shutter speed was too slow for me to handhold. Most portrait photographers work without a tripod, as it just roots you in one spot and limits your creativity in 95% of shooting situations.

A good TTL flash is mandatory, IMHO. As long as it swivels and tilts for bouncing you can use it on-camera to fantastic effect. It doesn't necessarily have to be an expensive one, just powerful enough to bounce some light around. Direct strobe basically sucks, so be creative in your bouncing. You don't need pocket wizards to take good flash photos. Keep your kit simple and learn how to use a single bounced strobe mixed with the available light before you move on to anything more complicated.

Screw upgrading your camera. There is zero reason and you will benefit more from a flash and improving your skills.

After adding a flash, my next recommendation would be for you to buy a wide zoom. Even something like a kit 18-55mm would add a lot of flexibility to your photography. An f/2.8 wide zoom would be even better. 24mm on a crop body isn't wide enough for me, but might be for you.

Good luck, keep shooting and I envy you and your $1800 budget.

I bolded the important part. When I am outside, that lens is perfect, and I have no issues with it at all (other than my own lack of skill) my issue is that I can't always frame my shot well when taking indoor shots because I can only go so far back before my back is against the wall...

To answer both you and iGas, there is no question that my personal skill is not up to anything close to even enthusiast level. I am trying to learn, read and practice, but I have a lot to learn. My budget is what it is because I am inventing in memories of my children, so this gets a high priority. For me (at least right now) the equipment is a crutch that I can lean on to help me take better photos, because there is no guarantee I will ever be able to "develop" (insert rim shot here) decent photography skills.

 

[Lazarus52980]

Below is an image that I took 2 weeks ago in over cast condition (the 4-5 years old kids are having a practice game, hence it was possible to use such a short focal length, bigger kids play full field where a 300-500mm lens would be perfect for FF body). Canon 5D MkII, 100mm L, 1/1000s, f3.5, ISO 400, Shutter Priority, AI-Servo, Continuous, Center focus point (old school), manual WB, handheld, and the image is cropped. I forgot to charged the battery and got off only 26 shots before it ran out of juice (1 shots was in single shot mode), and the camera nailed the focus for 23 shots out of 25 shots in AI-Servo/Continuous.

And, good luck with your purchasing decision.

This is a very nice shot; the exact type of shot I want to be able to consistently take. Thank you for posting it, and for the advice on camera settings and technique.

 

[AViking]

If your goal is to shoot your kids like this then a crop camera seems like the better bet. I wouldn't buy a new body. Yours should be fine.

I think you'd be best off buying a good book about your camera and then just practicing. You say you're too far away with the 70-200 but you can crop images. That lens is great. You also say you struggle to track the kids. I think you just need to practice. That lens is heavy though so maybe invest in a monopod.

 

[Tom]

Get a much smaller camera that has a nice normal zoom range. So you can follow your kids around without a heavy camera.

Good low light and fast af too. If the new Sony A6000 works as well as it sounds on paper it might be just right for you.

 

[Lazarus52980]

Get a much smaller camera that has a nice normal zoom range. So you can follow your kids around without a heavy camera.

Good low light and fast af too. If the new Sony A6000 works as well as it sounds on paper it might be just right for you.

Thank you for the advice, but I do not think this is the option for me. I am pretty heavily invested in the Nikon system already, and I hope to find a way to use a DSLR to get the photos I want.

 

[Paladin3]

I bolded the important part. When I am outside, that lens is perfect, and I have no issues with it at all (other than my own lack of skill) my issue is that I can't always frame my shot well when taking indoor shots because I can only go so far back before my back is against the wall...

To answer both you and iGas, there is no question that my personal skill is not up to anything close to even enthusiast level. I am trying to learn, read and practice, but I have a lot to learn. My budget is what it is because I am inventing in memories of my children, so this gets a high priority. For me (at least right now) the equipment is a crutch that I can lean on to help me take better photos, because there is no guarantee I will ever be able to "develop" (insert rim shot here) decent photography skills.

If 35mm isn't enough and 70mm is too much, then the 24-70/2.8 should solve your problem. That's a heck of a nice lens as long as 24mm is wide enough for you. For me it would not be.

A cheap 50mm would be another good (did I mention cheap!) option for indoor action.

The 17-55/2.8 is another lens to consider. 17mm is plenty wide for general shooting and up to 55mm @ 2.8 would be nice for shooting action/sports indoors if space is tight. This would be my preferred fast, wide zoom for general shooting on a crop body because of the flexibility it gives.

So, with your budget, I'd shop for one of those and then try to add a flash to the kit. A decent flash bounced off the living room ceiling and walls will freeze kids at play pretty well.

But do take all this advice for what it is, just opinions. Consider how you shoot and what you shoot and try to reason out what is the best gear for you.

 

[Lazarus52980]

If 35mm isn't enough and 70mm is too much, then the 24-70/2.8 should solve your problem. That's a heck of a nice lens as long as 24mm is wide enough for you. For me it would not be.

My intention is to spend about this amount of money every year until I have "good enough" gear (does that mean every year for the rest of my life?) So if 24mm is not wide enough, next year I might invest in the 14-24mm 2.8... The whole debate will come around again.

If I go with the 24-70mm, then I will have to find $$ for a "cheap" (see Craigslist) tripod and flash until I can invest in one worth keeping around

 

[iGas]

My intention is to spend about this amount of money every year until I have "good enough" gear (does that mean every year for the rest of my life?) So if 24mm is not wide enough, next year I might invest in the 14-24mm 2.8... The whole debate will come around again.

If I go with the 24-70mm, then I will have to find $$ for a "cheap" (see Craigslist) tripod and flash until I can invest in one worth keeping around

If you really into landscape then an ultra wide angle is a great tool, otherwise for the majority of general photography for 95% of the populous will be shots from 28~135mm on FX, or 19~90mm in DX format.

In almost 30 years of off & on photography hobby, I often find 35mm FX (24mm DX) is adequate for indoor people photography, but once in a while 24~28mm (26~19mm DX) is most welcome for indoor group photography.

IMHO, it would make perfect sense for you to get the 17~55mm zoom range be it a Nikkor, Tamron, or Sigma for DX body. Or, the 24-70mm for FX. other wise you will end up swapping lenses when you need the slightly wider angle, which is a pain in the ass to carry extra lenses and changing lenses between the 24-70mm & 14-24mm and in the middle of an event.

 

[Lazarus52980]

If you really into landscape then an ultra wide angle is a great tool, otherwise for the majority of general photography for 95% of the populous will be shots from 28~135mm on FX, or 19~90mm in DX format.

In almost 30 years of off & on photography hobby, I often find 35mm FX (24mm DX) is adequate for indoor people photography, but once in a while 24~28mm (26~19mm DX) is most welcome for indoor group photography.

IMHO, it would make perfect sense for you to get the 17~55mm zoom range be it a Nikkor, Tamron, or Sigma for DX body. Or, the 24-70mm for FX. other wise you will end up swapping lenses when you need the slightly wider angle, which is a pain in the ass to carry extra lenses and changing lenses between the 24-70mm & 14-24mm and in the middle of an event.

The reason I don't really want to buy the 17-55 2.8 is the same reason I don't want to buy a "cheap" tripod or flash: I will replace it at some point. As you mentioned a few posts above, I might be able to find a 610 used on Craigslist for cheap and bang, I'm an FX shooter. If/when that happens, the DX lens is useless. The almost universal opinion seems to be to get the lens, so that is what I will do.

I will try to remember to post a few photos from that lens once I get my tax return and get it.

Thank you everyone for the help and advice. I will go home tonight and practice "following" my kids with focus.

 

[CuriousMike]

I am inventing in memories of my children, so this gets a high priority.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/12/14/want-to-remember-something-don-t-take-a-photo

 

[slashbinslashbash]

I would look into a 50mm/1.4 and/or 85mm/1.8 primes. Both have minimum focus distances much closer than your 70-200. The 70-200 is 4.6 feet, the 85mm is 2.6 feet, the 50mm is 1.5 feet. Either of these gives you: 1) better reach than the 35; 2) large aperture for indoors shooting; and 3) closer focus for when you're in tighter situations than you can manage with the 70-200.

You can also step up to a 100/105mm f/2.8 Macro lens (Nikon or other brand -- Nikon calls their macro lenses "Micro") which of course will focus down to about 6" when necessary, but functions admirably as a portrait lens in normal use. I have all 3 of these primes (Canon versions) and they stay in my equipment collection for a reason. They all "kinda" overlap, but they all have their strengths and I can't really bear to part with any of them.

I would not look at upgrading your body. It would be good to have a single speedlight, but IMHO it doesn't sound like you're yet ready to deal with a multiple light setup. For indoors in most houses, a single speedlight, mounted on the camera and bounced off the ceiling will work wonders. If you are going to be taking a lot of photos in the same room for some event (birthday, Christmas presents), take it off-camera with a transceiver setup, set it up in a corner on a tripod, still aimed up to bounce off the ceiling. You don't have to pay the big money for Pocket Wizards, and there's no need to get a top-end flash IMHO (although admittedly, I am not as familiar with the Nikon flashes as I am with the Canon).

So, for your budget, I would probably pick up a 50mm/1.4 ($350), 85mm/1.8 ($400), 105mm Macro ($800 for the latest version with VR -- could find older versions or off-brand for $400-$500), and a Nikon Speedlight SB-700 ($325). That comes in at $1875. So, a little over, but if you shop used for any of this stuff, you should be able to come in right at your budget. Especially if you end up with an older or off-brand Macro lens.

Plus, you can use the fact that you're not putting all your eggs into one expensive basket. Maybe you figure out that between the 50 and the 100, you don't really need the 85. So you sell it on Craigslist or FM, and you lose $50 or so. No big deal, you can put that money into Pocket Wizards or whatever.

Now, there's no doubt that the 24-70 is a great lens, but it's quite expensive and won't quite get you there in low-light situations. f/1.8 is 1-1/3 stop faster than f/2.8. That's the difference between 1/50 and 1/20 shutter speeds. f/1.4 is 2 stops faster than f/2.8. That's the difference between 1/50 and 1/12.5 shutter speeds. Plus, any of these primes will be substantially smaller, lighter, and easier to handle than any f/2.8 zoom. Of course, it loses the zoom versatility, but I find that I don't miss that much. Better to get a good, clean, well-exposed, in-focus shot with somewhat poor framing, than a shot that is perfectly composed but blurry or under-exposed.

 

[iGas]

I would look into a 50mm/1.4 and/or 85mm/1.8 primes. Both have minimum focus distances much closer than your 70-200. The 70-200 is 4.6 feet, the 85mm is 2.6 feet, the 50mm is 1.5 feet. Either of these gives you: 1) better reach than the 35; 2) large aperture for indoors shooting; and 3) closer focus for when you're in tighter situations than you can manage with the 70-200.

You can also step up to a 100/105mm f/2.8 Macro lens (Nikon or other brand -- Nikon calls their macro lenses "Micro") which of course will focus down to about 6" when necessary, but functions admirably as a portrait lens in normal use. I have all 3 of these primes (Canon versions) and they stay in my equipment collection for a reason. They all "kinda" overlap, but they all have their strengths and I can't really bear to part with any of them.

I would not look at upgrading your body. It would be good to have a single speedlight, but IMHO it doesn't sound like you're yet ready to deal with a multiple light setup. For indoors in most houses, a single speedlight, mounted on the camera and bounced off the ceiling will work wonders. If you are going to be taking a lot of photos in the same room for some event (birthday, Christmas presents), take it off-camera with a transceiver setup, set it up in a corner on a tripod, still aimed up to bounce off the ceiling. You don't have to pay the big money for Pocket Wizards, and there's no need to get a top-end flash IMHO (although admittedly, I am not as familiar with the Nikon flashes as I am with the Canon).

So, for your budget, I would probably pick up a 50mm/1.4 ($350), 85mm/1.8 ($400), 105mm Macro ($800 for the latest version with VR -- could find older versions or off-brand for $400-$500), and a Nikon Speedlight SB-700 ($325). That comes in at $1875. So, a little over, but if you shop used for any of this stuff, you should be able to come in right at your budget. Especially if you end up with an older or off-brand Macro lens.

Plus, you can use the fact that you're not putting all your eggs into one expensive basket. Maybe you figure out that between the 50 and the 100, you don't really need the 85. So you sell it on Craigslist or FM, and you lose $50 or so. No big deal, you can put that money into Pocket Wizards or whatever.

Now, there's no doubt that the 24-70 is a great lens, but it's quite expensive and won't quite get you there in low-light situations. f/1.8 is 1-1/3 stop faster than f/2.8. That's the difference between 1/50 and 1/20 shutter speeds. f/1.4 is 2 stops faster than f/2.8. That's the difference between 1/50 and 1/12.5 shutter speeds. Plus, any of these primes will be substantially smaller, lighter, and easier to handle than any f/2.8 zoom. Of course, it loses the zoom versatility, but I find that I don't miss that much. Better to get a good, clean, well-exposed, in-focus shot with somewhat poor framing, than a shot that is perfectly composed but blurry or under-exposed.

70-200mm at 1.5 m is more than adequate to fill the frame with something the size of an open human hand at the long end. Hence there isn't a need for a macro lens unless you are looking to get into macro photography.

IMHO, you are not going to get many keepers of people photography at 1/50s due to subject movement, unless they are absolutely still, hence the general consensus is to shoot at 1/125s or greater. And, some photographers including myself prefer fast shutter speed to stop subject motion and fast flash sync speed for fill, hence we tend to push the shutter speed up to 1/200s or 1/250s to make sure the foreground lit to match the background, and stop motion. Therefore, don't be afraid to push the ISO to get fast shutter speed and sharp image + well exposed image.

 

[Lazarus52980]

70-200mm at 1.5 m is more than adequate to fill the frame with something the size of an open human hand at the long end. Hence there isn't a need for a macro lens unless you are looking to get into macro photography.

IMHO, you are not going to get many keepers of people photography at 1/50s due to subject movement, unless they are absolutely still, hence the general consensus is to shoot at 1/125s or greater. And, some photographers including myself prefer fast shutter speed to stop subject motion and fast flash sync speed for fill, hence we tend to push the shutter speed up to 1/200s or 1/250s to make sure the foreground lit to match the background, and stop motion. Therefore, don't be afraid to push the ISO to get fast shutter speed and sharp image + well exposed image.

It is interesting that you mention ISO. I find myself not liking the photos I get for anything higher than 3200 ISO. If I have more than that the photos just feel...grainy... Am I doing something wrong?

 

[imported_Irse]

It is interesting that you mention ISO. I find myself not liking the photos I get for anything higher than 3200 ISO. If I have more than that the photos just feel...grainy... Am I doing something wrong?

No I never shoot over 3200 and that is only football at night.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

70-200mm at 1.5 m is more than adequate to fill the frame with something the size of an open human hand at the long end. Hence there isn't a need for a macro lens unless you are looking to get into macro photography.

IMHO, you are not going to get many keepers of people photography at 1/50s due to subject movement, unless they are absolutely still, hence the general consensus is to shoot at 1/125s or greater. And, some photographers including myself prefer fast shutter speed to stop subject motion and fast flash sync speed for fill, hence we tend to push the shutter speed up to 1/200s or 1/250s to make sure the foreground lit to match the background, and stop motion. Therefore, don't be afraid to push the ISO to get fast shutter speed and sharp image + well exposed image.

The OP's problem with the 70-200 isn't filling the frame, it's being able to focus in close quarters. If you're in a child's bedroom, say 3mx3m, and it's got a bed and other furniture in it, if your MFD is 1.5m then you've practically got to be in the corner in order to get a decent non-posed shot while the child is playing. A MFD of 1m or less is much more livable. A MFD of 10cm is even better. That way, if the kid comes up close to you, you can still get a photo of their face and not deal with the idiocy of a lens that won't focus close enough. It's frustrating to have a $2000 piece of equipment in your hands that won't take a photo at a 1m distance.

And the actual numbers don't matter.... They were just being used as examples. So 1/50 with the 70-200 turns into 1/200 with the 50/1.4. Yes, of course you can always push the ISO. But if you have extra light-gathering capability at the lens, I think it's generally preferable.

I have taken indoor photos of moving people that turned out decently at 1/30s. Yes, there is some motion blur, but it looks fine. 1/50 generally works pretty well. Of course I try to hit 1/100, but I can get a pretty good keeper rate at 1/50. I have a whole album of indoor, available-light party photos taken with my 85mm at f/1.8, ISO 1600 and 1/60, including kids and adults milling around. Lots of keepers in that one. Yes, the DOF is narrow and there is some motion blur. And there are some photos that are ruined because of it. But on the whole, the "you are there" quality of the keepers more than makes up for the ones that are ruined. A camera without a flash disappears into a crowded room; people act like themselves and do not always notice the camera is pointing at them, and they do not know the moment when you take a photo. So you can get shots of their natural movements, expressions and interactions. The photos may not be technically perfect, but they carry emotional weight to the people who were there.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

It is interesting that you mention ISO. I find myself not liking the photos I get for anything higher than 3200 ISO. If I have more than that the photos just feel...grainy... Am I doing something wrong?

No, graininess is what comes when you push the ISO to higher levels. In general, newer cameras can take better photos at higher ISO, but at some point the graininess becomes distracting. Where that point lies, depends on your own aesthetic and equipment. You have determined that beyond 3200 is that point for you and this camera. Maybe with your next camera, it will be 6400.

However, if you look back at high-ISO film.... now THAT is some graininess! DSLR's are able to blow away anything that was done in the analog film world. The most-used high-ISO film (ISO 800 or higher) was black and white; it was the only way to get acceptable levels of grain.