Caz

Messages
16
Edit My Images
No
I've been researching different models for my first dslr camera and wanted some advice on what to look out for.

Much homework had me excited about the Nikon D3300 as a great starter camera for going from hobby to amateur.

Just about to bite the bullet and someone has suggested an older second hand d3.I'm not precious about buying new but given the cost wanted protection of warranty.

Does anyone have any advice or recommendations on where to start please?
 
Messages
2,576
Name
Ben
Edit My Images
Yes
I've been researching different models for my first dslr camera and wanted some advice on what to look out for.

Much homework had me excited about the Nikon D3300 as a great starter camera for going from hobby to amateur.

Just about to bite the bullet and someone has suggested an older second hand d3.I'm not precious about buying new but given the cost wanted protection of warranty.

Does anyone have any advice or recommendations on where to start please?
Go on amazon warehouse deals, this one is £273 with the automatic 20% off at checkout.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-Digi...&ie=UTF8&qid=1511467196&sr=8-1&keywords=nikon
 
  • Like
Reactions: Caz

GTG

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,795
Edit My Images
Yes
Nothing wrong with your plan.

but don't get a d3. they are big, heavy and many are heavily used by now.

there may be some very good examples out there but at a premium cost.

last time I looked low shutter count, mint condition d3`s were not at all cheap
 
Messages
757
Name
Daniel
Edit My Images
No
I bougt my D3300 as a beginner camera and still have it now and love it just as much as when I got it. Great little camera and worth the investment!
 
OP
C

Caz

Messages
16
Edit My Images
No
Nothing wrong with your plan.

but don't get a d3. they are big, heavy and many are heavily used by now.

there may be some very good examples out there but at a premium cost.

last time I looked low shutter count, mint condition d3`s were not at all cheap
Thank you, was thinking I might have been missing a trick but doesn't sound like it so thank you.
 
OP
C

Caz

Messages
16
Edit My Images
No
I bougt my D3300 as a beginner camera and still have it now and love it just as much as when I got it. Great little camera and worth the investment!
Thank you, good to know, looks a great camera. Do you think it's worth paying a little bit extra for the new d3400?
 
Messages
3,746
Name
droj
Edit My Images
No
Go for the D3300! Modern performance, small in the hand. Or if you want to save money, take the same product line back a couple of generations and go second-hand. Or, equally, and you don't mind a bulkier and heavier camera, step back more generations and look for a pro-weight body such as a D300 (same 'crop' sensor size).

Basically there are two common sizes of dslr sensor sizes - 'crop', and' full-frame'. It's nothing to worry about at this at this stage, except that 'crop' lenses (DX, in Nikon terminology) only suit 'crop' cameras (such as the D3300) in terms of the size of images they produce, whereas 'full frame' lenses will perform on any camera with the same Nikon mount. But there can be discrepancies in autofocus connection, so it's easier to get a body+lens package to save having to work that out.

If you were in reach of any decent camera shop, it's always worth getting a camera in your hand, to see how it fits your hand and how you might get on with it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Caz
OP
C

Caz

Messages
16
Edit My Images
No
Go for the D3300! Modern performance, small in the hand. Or if you want to save money, take the same product line back a couple of generations and go second-hand. Or, equally, and you don't mind a bulkier and heavier camera, step back more generations and look for a pro-weight body such as a D300 (same 'crop' sensor size).

Basically there are two common sizes of dslr sensor sizes - 'crop', and' full-frame'. It's nothing to worry about at this at this stage, except that 'crop' lenses (DX, in Nikon terminology) only suit 'crop' cameras (such as the D3300) in terms of the size of images they produce, whereas 'full frame' lenses will perform on any camera with the same Nikon mount. But there can be discrepancies in autofocus connection, so it's easier to get a body+lens package to save having to work that out.

If you were in reach of any decent camera shop, it's always worth getting a camera in your hand, to see how it fits your hand and how you might get on with it.
Thank you ☺
 
Messages
757
Name
Daniel
Edit My Images
No
Thank you, good to know, looks a great camera. Do you think it's worth paying a little bit extra for the new d3400?
I couldn't tell you to be honest I've only ever held the D3400 once, it felt a lot lighter than the D3300 but I wasn't sure if that was a good thing or not to be honest! I think the D3300 would hold up for any beginner (I should say I've had my camera over 3 years now and am very much still a beginner!).

The only thing now that I am looking for is the WiFi adapter as my workflow is changing slightly, with the adapter I can transfer the files to my iPad but there are bodies out there that have WiFi built in!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Caz
OP
C

Caz

Messages
16
Edit My Images
No
I couldn't tell you to be honest I've only ever held the D3400 once, it felt a lot lighter than the D3300 but I wasn't sure if that was a good thing or not to be honest! I think the D3300 would hold up for any beginner (I should say I've had my camera over 3 years now and am very much still a beginner!).

The only thing now that I am looking for is the WiFi adapter as my workflow is changing slightly, with the adapter I can transfer the files to my iPad but there are bodies out there that have WiFi built in!
Thank you ☺
 
OP
C

Caz

Messages
16
Edit My Images
No
I couldn't tell you to be honest I've only ever held the D3400 once, it felt a lot lighter than the D3300 but I wasn't sure if that was a good thing or not to be honest! I think the D3300 would hold up for any beginner (I should say I've had my camera over 3 years now and am very much still a beginner!).

The only thing now that I am looking for is the WiFi adapter as my workflow is changing slightly, with the adapter I can transfer the files to my iPad but there are bodies out there that have WiFi built in!
Thank you ☺
 
OP
C

Caz

Messages
16
Edit My Images
No
Why
Ive had a d3400.nothing wrong with it but sold it and am currently running my 6th d3300.love it
Thank you, that's interesting. I'd have thought weight and connection may have been the differentiator.
 
Messages
584
Edit My Images
No
I've been researching different models for my first dslr camera and wanted some advice on what to look out for.

Much homework had me excited about the Nikon D3300 as a great starter camera for going from hobby to amateur.

Just about to bite the bullet and someone has suggested an older second hand d3.I'm not precious about buying new but given the cost wanted protection of warranty.

Does anyone have any advice or recommendations on where to start please?
Just to get it out the way - camera choice doesn't make you a hobbyist, amateur or a pro, there's plenty of people having photos published that were taken on iPhones for example.

What do you want to use the camera for ? What are the limiting factors with your current camera (if any) ?
 
Messages
1,088
Name
Mike
Edit My Images
Yes
I bought the D3200 almost six years ago. I have little compunction yo 'upgrade' in any way!
I stated with film cameras, and early into the digital-dark-room, as it was less messy, and easier to breath than under the stairs with an enlarger, the 'convenience' of a direct-to-digital camera appealed.... prices and potential image quality did not! I stuck to film a scanning until the early years of the new millenium, when consumer compacts became a little more 'reasonable'.
With a What-You-See-What-You-Get LCD screen on the back, it gave the same advantage of a 'Single-Lens-Reflex film-camera, with complex mirror and pentaprism mechanism to give through-taking-lens view-finder composition, without the complex or bulky mechanics. Only featire it really lacked was interchangeable lenses.... but, so what. Neither do many of my flm cameras, and even thse that do, so often end up wearing only one lens, usually pretty close to the equiilet focal length of the digi-pact anyway. When that broke... yeah, they dont make'em like they used to... it lasted about three years... I have film cameras that are over half a century old and still going strong! But.. when that broke, the replacement had a built in zoom... 28-70mm 'equivlent' focal length to my 35mm film cameras... which were the most often used focal lengths any-way.... this really did make me ponder the merits of a DSLR, and exactly what it really offered over a zoom compact... until that too dis after a few years..... Four digtal compacts in a decade,sort of brought me around to looking at DSLR's, as much as anything, because the entry level models had fallen into a pce range that was almost 'reasonable' under £500, and digital compacts had either disappeared into smurfones, or gobe up the market, to become 'mirror-less' interchangeable lens cameras, that frequently offered little to commend them over entry level DSLR, and brought a lot of added niggles, like lesser lens choice and availability with them. Ergo.. an 'entry-level' DSLR, pretty much chose itself by default, ad mostly on the price tag!
Now... with a zoom lens covering that most used focal length range from about 29-82mm, 'equivlent', a built in flash, and an ISO range from 100 to 12,800 sort of every film in the shop in the film-days.... out the box, the thing has as much or more capablity than almost any of my film cameras ever did, and no runningg to and from boots to try find film or pick up prints.... it's pretty close to all things to all men, before gog hunting alternative lenses or accessory flash guns, or anythig else to pack out the gadget bag....
And here in lies the moral... you cant 'buy' better photo's, you have to make the; and that takes time, patience, know-how and pactice, NOT a credit card and a 'better' camera.
Out the box, entry level DSLR's offer a heck of a lot more than you likely ever 'need' to make better photo's, and already have enough convolution to make them ever more of a faff to get to grips with using, and getting the most from using.. an the lower down the range you look, and looking second hand at older lower range cameras still, that lack the significantly sales features and functions, and gee-gaws and widgets; the more back-to basics they are, the LESS you have to fiddle with, the less you have to cock-up, the less you have to try and figure out what it is eve there for,let alone how to tr and use t ad the most hance you have from "Keep-It-Simple-Silly" to get on, learn what you need to know, learn how to do it better and get the better photo's you hope for.

Nikon and Cannon are the incumbants in the market. They have the widest rage of accessories and lenses, either propriety or third-party; if/when you decide you want or need another lens, or 'whatever', you will likely have a far wder choice of offerings, new and used, at much more competative prices. Smilarly, more people use them, more people know the is and outs and foibles, you will more readily find practical advice and helpfl hits to use them. They make the ob of learning that much easier, and again 'Keep-It-Simple-Silly"

So, Keep-It-Simple-Silly...

1/ Nikon or Cannon?
Little to choose between them on paper, practically. Newer Nikons possibly have an edge n sensor technology, for low light ad pixei count, but, meh! Really comes down to which brand you find easiest to handle& use! I preffer the less 'would you like fries with that' sort of 'interface' of the Nikon, inutatively its more like one of my old clock-work film cameras; curiousely, daughter broght up on Game-Boys ad Smurfones, also found it more intuative to use, but Cannon afcionados will likely undoubtedly their preference.. maybe they joy prodding buttons and spending more time looking at the camera than through it, I dont know ;-)... point s, your call, et hands on, try before you buy, see which you more comfortably can pick up, turn on and take a picture with. There's no right or wrong answer.

2/ New or Used?
New you pay more, and get a warranty card. Used you pay less, and on older models a heck of a lot less; and very very often, especially on entry level cameras, its of kit bought in short lived enthusiasm and stuck on a shelf very quickly he not really used. Personally, my experience with early compact digital lasting around two to three years, suggested I bought new but mine has lasted twice any of the compacts ever did already! Meanwhile, Daughter & O/H both were inspired and I helped them buy 2nd Hand D3100's... which were already perhaps three or four years old, and both still going strong. A warrannty is really only worth anythig IF you have to claim on it! Then the shop you bought from's 'unhelpfulness' can be as much of an issue as the warranty! For me, I have no regrets buyg new; t's the frst 'new' SLR I have bought i thirty years, always having bought 2nd hand before, I 'treated myself'; whilst I was also overwhelmed trying to differentiate between the myriad of older offerings on 2nd hand market. I was a bit more clued up when I bought daughters & O/H's second hand, so could write off some of that premiu as the price of learning, but again, its risk vs reward, and your call, there's o right or wrong answer,

3/ DOT BUY ORE THAN YOU NEED!
Initial enthusiasm often sees a lot of people pile up the counter with a camera and all the accouterments to go with it, or buy a 'bundle' that's often not the best value, and until you have 'reason' for buying anything extra, likely just dead weight in the almost certainly too-small and wrong shape, ad handle gadget bag in the bundle!

To take a photo, you NEED only on camera, one lens, a memory card to store the photo on, and the battery to power it all up long enough to get it!

Only 'accessories' I put any great store by are spare batteries ad spare memory cards.. an electrc picture maker is no dang use for much without electric, and without a card to store photo, you ant got one! Big cards are probably not all that helpful...they just encourage you to take more photo's and think less about takig them, and be less diligent in after-capture strage, to archive the keepers... on which topic a dedicated hard drive is probably far more use than more direct camera accessories far sooner. But, smaller cards, are often faster, and fast WRTE speeds the more crtical than fast read speeds,many ads quote to hide the fact they aren't actually all that quick.... but something that you can pondr more after you have got going...

And that's the key... getting going; getting taking pictures, doing some learning, and discovering first how to get the best from what you got, ad the IF you need more or different, what 'may' actually be more worth while, and usefully extend your capability.. and not just give you more kit to 'faff' with.

Remember, Keep-It-Simple-Silly.....

Almost any DSLR made the last ten years has more than enough capability than you can reasonably exploit straight ff the stops, so dot sweat the small stuff, and DOT buy 'more' than you need to get going.
 
OP
C

Caz

Messages
16
Edit My Images
No
I bought the D3200 almost six years ago. I have little compunction yo 'upgrade' in any way!
I stated with film cameras, and early into the digital-dark-room, as it was less messy, and easier to breath than under the stairs with an enlarger, the 'convenience' of a direct-to-digital camera appealed.... prices and potential image quality did not! I stuck to film a scanning until the early years of the new millenium, when consumer compacts became a little more 'reasonable'.
With a What-You-See-What-You-Get LCD screen on the back, it gave the same advantage of a 'Single-Lens-Reflex film-camera, with complex mirror and pentaprism mechanism to give through-taking-lens view-finder composition, without the complex or bulky mechanics. Only featire it really lacked was interchangeable lenses.... but, so what. Neither do many of my flm cameras, and even thse that do, so often end up wearing only one lens, usually pretty close to the equiilet focal length of the digi-pact anyway. When that broke... yeah, they dont make'em like they used to... it lasted about three years... I have film cameras that are over half a century old and still going strong! But.. when that broke, the replacement had a built in zoom... 28-70mm 'equivlent' focal length to my 35mm film cameras... which were the most often used focal lengths any-way.... this really did make me ponder the merits of a DSLR, and exactly what it really offered over a zoom compact... until that too dis after a few years..... Four digtal compacts in a decade,sort of brought me around to looking at DSLR's, as much as anything, because the entry level models had fallen into a pce range that was almost 'reasonable' under £500, and digital compacts had either disappeared into smurfones, or gobe up the market, to become 'mirror-less' interchangeable lens cameras, that frequently offered little to commend them over entry level DSLR, and brought a lot of added niggles, like lesser lens choice and availability with them. Ergo.. an 'entry-level' DSLR, pretty much chose itself by default, ad mostly on the price tag!
Now... with a zoom lens covering that most used focal length range from about 29-82mm, 'equivlent', a built in flash, and an ISO range from 100 to 12,800 sort of every film in the shop in the film-days.... out the box, the thing has as much or more capablity than almost any of my film cameras ever did, and no runningg to and from boots to try find film or pick up prints.... it's pretty close to all things to all men, before gog hunting alternative lenses or accessory flash guns, or anythig else to pack out the gadget bag....
And here in lies the moral... you cant 'buy' better photo's, you have to make the; and that takes time, patience, know-how and pactice, NOT a credit card and a 'better' camera.
Out the box, entry level DSLR's offer a heck of a lot more than you likely ever 'need' to make better photo's, and already have enough convolution to make them ever more of a faff to get to grips with using, and getting the most from using.. an the lower down the range you look, and looking second hand at older lower range cameras still, that lack the significantly sales features and functions, and gee-gaws and widgets; the more back-to basics they are, the LESS you have to fiddle with, the less you have to cock-up, the less you have to try and figure out what it is eve there for,let alone how to tr and use t ad the most hance you have from "Keep-It-Simple-Silly" to get on, learn what you need to know, learn how to do it better and get the better photo's you hope for.

Nikon and Cannon are the incumbants in the market. They have the widest rage of accessories and lenses, either propriety or third-party; if/when you decide you want or need another lens, or 'whatever', you will likely have a far wder choice of offerings, new and used, at much more competative prices. Smilarly, more people use them, more people know the is and outs and foibles, you will more readily find practical advice and helpfl hits to use them. They make the ob of learning that much easier, and again 'Keep-It-Simple-Silly"

So, Keep-It-Simple-Silly...

1/ Nikon or Cannon?
Little to choose between them on paper, practically. Newer Nikons possibly have an edge n sensor technology, for low light ad pixei count, but, meh! Really comes down to which brand you find easiest to handle& use! I preffer the less 'would you like fries with that' sort of 'interface' of the Nikon, inutatively its more like one of my old clock-work film cameras; curiousely, daughter broght up on Game-Boys ad Smurfones, also found it more intuative to use, but Cannon afcionados will likely undoubtedly their preference.. maybe they joy prodding buttons and spending more time looking at the camera than through it, I dont know ;-)... point s, your call, et hands on, try before you buy, see which you more comfortably can pick up, turn on and take a picture with. There's no right or wrong answer.

2/ New or Used?
New you pay more, and get a warranty card. Used you pay less, and on older models a heck of a lot less; and very very often, especially on entry level cameras, its of kit bought in short lived enthusiasm and stuck on a shelf very quickly he not really used. Personally, my experience with early compact digital lasting around two to three years, suggested I bought new but mine has lasted twice any of the compacts ever did already! Meanwhile, Daughter & O/H both were inspired and I helped them buy 2nd Hand D3100's... which were already perhaps three or four years old, and both still going strong. A warrannty is really only worth anythig IF you have to claim on it! Then the shop you bought from's 'unhelpfulness' can be as much of an issue as the warranty! For me, I have no regrets buyg new; t's the frst 'new' SLR I have bought i thirty years, always having bought 2nd hand before, I 'treated myself'; whilst I was also overwhelmed trying to differentiate between the myriad of older offerings on 2nd hand market. I was a bit more clued up when I bought daughters & O/H's second hand, so could write off some of that premiu as the price of learning, but again, its risk vs reward, and your call, there's o right or wrong answer,

3/ DOT BUY ORE THAN YOU NEED!
Initial enthusiasm often sees a lot of people pile up the counter with a camera and all the accouterments to go with it, or buy a 'bundle' that's often not the best value, and until you have 'reason' for buying anything extra, likely just dead weight in the almost certainly too-small and wrong shape, ad handle gadget bag in the bundle!

To take a photo, you NEED only on camera, one lens, a memory card to store the photo on, and the battery to power it all up long enough to get it!

Only 'accessories' I put any great store by are spare batteries ad spare memory cards.. an electrc picture maker is no dang use for much without electric, and without a card to store photo, you ant got one! Big cards are probably not all that helpful...they just encourage you to take more photo's and think less about takig them, and be less diligent in after-capture strage, to archive the keepers... on which topic a dedicated hard drive is probably far more use than more direct camera accessories far sooner. But, smaller cards, are often faster, and fast WRTE speeds the more crtical than fast read speeds,many ads quote to hide the fact they aren't actually all that quick.... but something that you can pondr more after you have got going...

And that's the key... getting going; getting taking pictures, doing some learning, and discovering first how to get the best from what you got, ad the IF you need more or different, what 'may' actually be more worth while, and usefully extend your capability.. and not just give you more kit to 'faff' with.

Remember, Keep-It-Simple-Silly.....

Almost any DSLR made the last ten years has more than enough capability than you can reasonably exploit straight ff the stops, so dot sweat the small stuff, and DOT buy 'more' than you need to get going.
Thank you ☺
 
Messages
7,633
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
Pay a little bit more and get the D5300 with the articulated screen ... invaluable when getting all creative and shooting from waist-level, knee-level, ground-level. HERE is one of the first things I did when getting my D5300 three years ago. And, more recently, I took THIS when stopping a fellow togger in Hyde Park, and not wanting to fiddle with a tripod - even if I had one - or to get down on one knee.

It also has many more focus points (although I use single focus point 99% of the time),
has in-camera HDR (although I prefer the in-camera HDR on my canon G7X),
and GPS (a thing I never use).

But the articulated screen really is worth getting, imo.
 
Last edited:
Messages
9,460
Edit My Images
Yes
Pay a little bit more and get the D5300 with the articulated screen ... invaluable when getting all creative and shooting from waist-level, knee-level, ground-level. HERE is one of the first things I did when getting my D5300 three years ago. And, more recently, I took THIS when stopping a fellow togger in Hyde Park, and not wanting to fiddle with a tripod - even if I had one - or to get down on one knee.

It also has many more focus points (although I use single focus point 99% of the time),
has in-camera HDR (although I prefer the in-camera HDR on my canon G7X),
and GPS (a thing I never use).

But the articulated screen really is worth getting, imo.
So basically the articulated screen was the extra you paid for?
 
Messages
45
Edit My Images
Yes
I bought my D3200 nearly three years ago and still have it although I've now also got a D500. The great thing about the D3X00 series is they're simple enough to learn the basics from but are still very capable of producing good shots. I wouldn't have a clue how to operate the D500 had I not had nearly three years learning about camera settings from my little 3200. You won't go far wrong with the 3300 at all.
 
Messages
9,460
Edit My Images
Yes
I had a d750 and a d7200 and i did love the iqof the 750 i prefer the simlicity of the d3300 but if you want to have extra buttons and features i cant knock the higher models,i just never used the features and now am very happy with the d3300
 
OP
C

Caz

Messages
16
Edit My Images
No
Pay a little bit more and get the D5300 with the articulated screen ... invaluable when getting all creative and shooting from waist-level, knee-level, ground-level. HERE is one of the first things I did when getting my D5300 three years ago. And, more recently, I took THIS when stopping a fellow togger in Hyde Park, and not wanting to fiddle with a tripod - even if I had one - or to get down on one knee.

It also has many more focus points (although I use single focus point 99% of the time),
has in-camera HDR (although I prefer the in-camera HDR on my canon G7X),
and GPS (a thing I never use).

But the articulated screen really is worth getting, imo.

Thank you. I thought I'd finally decided and was yesterday introduced to the Canon 200d, which I understand is a strong contender with obvious benefits over the 3400 (articulated screen, WiFi, improved layout and of course weight). Also with strong price reductions looking at similar offers. How would you compare these two?
I'm not actually too bothered about the video which seems to be a strong pull for many, I'm just looking for a good starter dslr to introduce me to manual photography and provide good base for deveping skills and trying new lenses. Finding the experience quite daunting so much choice and every time you think you're decided another comes up. Is the Canon more gimmick? I had hoped to go with Nikon but must admit the Canon layout seems far easier to use. Any thoughts would be much appreciated. Thanks
 
Messages
17,338
Edit My Images
No
Can I ask how you find Nikon v Canon?
Can of worms opened :p

Canon vs Nikon is purely preference, and mainly boils down to handling/ergonomics. The D3300 is an excellent starter camera, I'm always amazed by how small it is too (y)
 
OP
C

Caz

Messages
16
Edit My Images
No
Just to get it out the way - camera choice doesn't make you a hobbyist, amateur or a pro, there's plenty of people having photos published that were taken on iPhones for example.

What do you want to use the camera for ? What are the limiting factors with your current camera (if any) ?
Thank you, of course but given the costs of dslr want to be sure on what I'm buying. I love photography and have been playing with an old film camera and talking about getting a dslr for years. Finally in a position where hoping to invest a bit more time in it and want a dslr to take me from occasional use/amateur, to help me take it to next level on manual and give scope for building on wider lens range. I have a wide range of styles which is making it harder but ultimately close ups on nature but also thinking of something that will give good scope for wider shots when travelling.
 
Messages
23,764
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
No
Can I ask how you find Nikon v Canon?
Canon vs Nikon is a bit Ford vs Vauxhall, some people have an almost religious attraction, others see it as pointless.

If you like the layout better, that’s as much information as you need. You’ve made your mind up.

For most of the range, Nikon have slightly better high ISO performance and better DR, but even the cheapest new DSLR is more capable than a mid range camera 10 years ago. When you outgrow it, buy something better, there’s nothing more complicated to it than that. If you get obsessed by the wrong bits, you’ll miss out on the ‘photography’
 
  • Like
Reactions: Caz
OP
C

Caz

Messages
16
Edit My Images
No
Can of worms opened :p

Canon vs Nikon is purely preference, and mainly boils down to handling/ergonomics. The D3300 is an excellent starter camera, I'm always amazed by how small it is too (y)
Thank you. I was so set on Nikon until another camera was introduced to me yesterday and now feeling like back to square one. Too much choice
 
OP
C

Caz

Messages
16
Edit My Images
No
Canon vs Nikon is a bit Ford vs Vauxhall, some people have an almost religious attraction, others see it as pointless.

If you like the layout better, that’s as much information as you need. You’ve made your mind up.

For most of the range, Nikon have slightly better high ISO performance and better DR, but even the cheapest new DSLR is more capable than a mid range camera 10 years ago. When you outgrow it, buy something better, there’s nothing more complicated to it than that. If you get obsessed by the wrong bits, you’ll miss out on the ‘photography’
Thank you
 
Messages
17,338
Edit My Images
No
Thank you. I was so set on Nikon until another camera was introduced to me yesterday and now feeling like back to square one. Too much choice
Yep, there's a lot of choice. You need to decide whether you think you'd be better with a DSLR or mirrorless, then once you're set on that you need to decide which one of those that you want. My advice would be to go to a store and try a few to see what you like.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Caz
Messages
9,460
Edit My Images
Yes
Can I ask how you find Nikon v Canon?
Hi Caz.
I would be happy with either make to be honest,ive had no problem with either make.
I do like the sensor in the nikon series 3-5-7, but canon are also excellent.,handle both and then decide
I like the sony mirrorless eg a6000 and also the olympus mico 4/3rds cameras.not had a panny well apart from the fz1000 bridge so cant comment on those.
I have a little gas for an olympus again myself lol.
Oh and dont forget the fuji’s also .
Good choices,its cost me a fortune going from one to the other so try and be firm in your choice before buying lol
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Caz
OP
C

Caz

Messages
16
Edit My Images
No
Hi Caz.
I would be happy with either make to be honest,ive had no problem with either make.
I do like the sensor in the nikon series 3-5-7, but canon are also excellent.,handle both and then decide
I like the sony mirrorless eg a6000 and also the olympus mico 4/3rds cameras.not had a panny well apart from the fz1000 bridge so cant comment on those.
I have a little gas for an olympus again myself lol.
Oh and dont forget the fuji’s also .
Good choices,its cost me a fortune going from one to the other so try and be firm in your choice before buying lol

Thank you
 
Messages
750
Edit My Images
No
Don't want to confuse the issue any further but have you looked at mirrorless, incl Micro 4/3rds?
I ask only because as a long term Canon shooter, I never thought I'd see the day when I gave up my beloved Canon kit for something else - in my case I've bought a Panasonic G80 and am delighted with it.
More info available if needed, including why I've done what I've done.
 
Messages
7,633
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
Thank you. I thought I'd finally decided and was yesterday introduced to the Canon 200d, which I understand is a strong contender with obvious benefits over the 3400 (articulated screen, WiFi, improved layout and of course weight). Also with strong price reductions looking at similar offers. How would you compare these two?
I'm not actually too bothered about the video which seems to be a strong pull for many, I'm just looking for a good starter dslr to introduce me to manual photography and provide good base for deveping skills and trying new lenses. Finding the experience quite daunting so much choice and every time you think you're decided another comes up. Is the Canon more gimmick? I had hoped to go with Nikon but must admit the Canon layout seems far easier to use. Any thoughts would be much appreciated. Thanks
I know nothing about the Canon 200D so can't really help.

I don't know which Nikon level it's on a par with but THIS SITE is comparing it to the D5600.

Pricewise ... a minefield, different kit lenses, cashbacks and other confusions.

If you find the Canon layout easier then perhaps you should go with that. But .... were you sold on the *easiness* by the person that introduced to the Canon 200D yesterday?
 
Top