Entry level APSC camera with kit lens

Messages
2,611
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
#1
I’ve been out the loop for a while and have been asked to acquire the above for around £300, perhaps £350 but certainly not a penny more.

It needs to be from a uk source, preferably large retailer or high street shop.

Can be dslr or mirrorless but most importantly has to be pick up and play for your granny to use.

What are the best options?
 
Messages
14,872
Name
Simon
Edit My Images
Yes
#2
New, I think you will be struggling. Something like th fuji xt10 plus kit lens from their refurb store would be a good bet
 
Messages
19,330
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
#3
If used is ok there's a Panasonic GX80 in the for sale section, add a kit lens and that would be a good choice. I have one and I think it's a very good camera.
 
Messages
2,876
Name
Dominic
Edit My Images
Yes
#4
You can pick up a Canon 1300d with kit lens, from argos, for £329

It would be good to know what sort of photography the camera is going to be used for, to help to give the best advice.
 
OP
OP
Brazo
Messages
2,611
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
#7
You can pick up a Canon 1300d with kit lens, from argos, for £329

It would be good to know what sort of photography the camera is going to be used for, to help to give the best advice.
Thanks to all. Don’t worry what it’s to be used for I just need a cheap entry level cam APSC for better low light compared to a mobile phone and wondered what the various manufacturers were offering.
 
Messages
420
Edit My Images
No
#8
Messages
116
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
Yes
#10
Another vote for a D3400 and kit lens. They are very easy to use (and may be better than the D3500). Noise only becomes a problem after ISO 1600.

If you are shooting moving things in really low light the 35mm f/1.8 is good value. If shooting static things the kit lens will probably do.
 
Messages
9,114
Edit My Images
Yes
#15
It's the bodies that I found small, rather than the viewfinders. :)
Ok sorry it’s true I was referring to the vf,but yes for some people they may find the body small ,I never had a problem and found it a perfect balance between a big bodied slr and too small mirrorless so a good selling point maybe lol
 
Messages
10,300
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
#16
Ok sorry it’s true I was referring to the vf,but yes for some people they may find the body small ,I never had a problem and found it a perfect balance between a big bodied slr and too small mirrorless so a good selling point maybe lol
OOh, look who's back! :)

I don't get the size comparison, as the D3300 etc are actually are about the size of the Sony A7III but with some actual grip ... yet people don't moan about the Sony being too small :thinking:
 
Last edited:
Messages
420
Edit My Images
No
#17
Ok sorry it’s true I was referring to the vf,but yes for some people they may find the body small ,I never had a problem and found it a perfect balance between a big bodied slr and too small mirrorless so a good selling point maybe lol
Using a D5200 at the moment and very much agree. With an Olympus e-m5 I found I was forever accidentally pressing buttons whilst holding the camera as it was too small. Anything larger/heavier becomes an issue when carrying it around all day. The D3XXX and D5XXX bodies are pretty much spot on.

My only complaint is I wish Nikon did a pancake lens like the Canon EF-S 24mm for when I want to go truly compact.
 
Messages
6,264
Name
Graham
Edit My Images
No
#18
The viewfinder on the d33/34’s are better 0.85mag compared to the 0.82 53/55 which are slightly less magnified but obviously not comparable to the 0.94 71/72’s
I think the biggest difference comes from the D3xxx's using Pentamirrors vs. Pentaprisms of the D7xxx cameras. The prisms being much brighter. Not that it sounds like it will matter much to the OP but seeing as it was a point of discussion I just thought I'd chuck it in there!
 
Messages
9,114
Edit My Images
Yes
#19
I think the biggest difference comes from the D3xxx's using Pentamirrors vs. Pentaprisms of the D7xxx cameras. The prisms being much brighter. Not that it sounds like it will matter much to the OP but seeing as it was a point of discussion I just thought I'd chuck it in there!
Agree Graham,when I had a D7200 it definitely was nice to look through v the D3300 but I still prefer the D3300’s VF to the mirrorless EVF’sI’ve had
 
Messages
19,330
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
#20
Another vote for a D3400 and kit lens. They are very easy to use (and may be better than the D3500). Noise only becomes a problem after ISO 1600.

If you are shooting moving things in really low light the 35mm f/1.8 is good value. If shooting static things the kit lens will probably do.
I'd be amazed if any camera from the last few of years or so couldn't give good results at significantly higher ISO's than 1600. I use my MFT cameras at any ISO up to and including 25,600 and I only really find real issues under some artificial lighting. In lighting that isn't terrible higher ISO's should be useable especially with modern software and maybe some downsizing.

If you want to shoot under terrible artificial lighting and view an ISO 1600 picture at 1:1 then it probably will look terrible but take a bit of care and accept that an A3 print may have to be viewed normally and not with a magnifying glass and I'd expect ISO's over 1600 to give good results.

Just my opinion :D
 
Messages
9,114
Edit My Images
Yes
#21
I'd be amazed if any camera from the last few of years or so couldn't give good results at significantly higher ISO's than 1600. I use my MFT cameras at any ISO up to and including 25,600 and I only really find real issues under some artificial lighting. In lighting that isn't terrible higher ISO's should be useable especially with modern software and maybe some downsizing.

If you want to shoot under terrible artificial lighting and view an ISO 1600 picture at 1:1 then it probably will look terrible but take a bit of care and accept that an A3 print may have to be viewed normally and not with a magnifying glass and I'd expect ISO's over 1600 to give good results.

Just my opinion :D
good point Alan,its the artificial lighting shots that can look crap at higher ISO and as you say if your'e viewing at a resonable size distance ,not a problem
 
Messages
420
Edit My Images
No
#22
I'd be amazed if any camera from the last few of years or so couldn't give good results at significantly higher ISO's than 1600. I use my MFT cameras at any ISO up to and including 25,600 and I only really find real issues under some artificial lighting. In lighting that isn't terrible higher ISO's should be useable especially with modern software and maybe some downsizing.

If you want to shoot under terrible artificial lighting and view an ISO 1600 picture at 1:1 then it probably will look terrible but take a bit of care and accept that an A3 print may have to be viewed normally and not with a magnifying glass and I'd expect ISO's over 1600 to give good results.

Just my opinion :D
Indeed. Regularly shoot at ISO6400 on my D5200 and have no problems with it's output
 
Messages
116
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
Yes
#23
Most of my photography is done under terrible artificial lighting, with fast moving people. D3400 and 35mm f/1.8 worked well enough but 24mm f/1.8 was better for full body shorts.

Noise was really good but started to be a bit noticeable at 3200. Perhaps I'm too fussy.
 
Messages
1,275
Name
Soeren
Edit My Images
Yes
#24
Agree Graham,when I had a D7200 it definitely was nice to look through v the D3300 but I still prefer the D3300’s VF to the mirrorless EVF’sI’ve had
After having the chance to play with my sisters D3200 a few days ago I don't feel I'm missing anything not even with my A6000. Man that finder is tiny and dark in comparison.
 
Messages
9,114
Edit My Images
Yes
#25
After having the chance to play with my sisters D3200 a few days ago I don't feel I'm missing anything not even with my A6000. Man that finder is tiny and dark in comparison.
0.8 compared to 0.85 at 50mm on the d33/3400 A6000 0.7 at 35mm so shouldnt be much difference but you might find the A6000 is brighter cus of it being Mirrorless,I have had 2 A6000 and its a personel thing but still prefer the optical even on the lower bodies,WMMV :)
 
Messages
1,275
Name
Soeren
Edit My Images
Yes
#26
0.8 compared to 0.85 at 50mm on the d33/3400 A6000 0.7 at 35mm so shouldnt be much difference but you might find the A6000 is brighter cus of it being Mirrorless,I have had 2 A6000 and its a personel thing but still prefer the optical even on the lower bodies,WMMV :)
It certainly does. I find my X-T2 and -3 miles ahead og both but the are not exactly entrylevel.
 
Messages
9,114
Edit My Images
Yes
#27
yes my friend who has an X100F and Xt2 loves them,I have had the F and looked through his XT2 and it is excellent but still not my choice :),
 
Messages
11,022
Name
Toni
Edit My Images
No
#28
It's not so much the size of the OVF in food-grade Nikons, but the horrible dimness. When I bought my first DSLR I chose a Sony partly because the EVF was so much better than the Nikon D3200s, but I also tried the equivalent entry level Pentax and THAT was a lot better than the Nikon too. The dinginess just makes the Nikon OVF feel even smaller than it really is.
 
Messages
9,114
Edit My Images
Yes
#29
It's not so much the size of the OVF in food-grade Nikons, but the horrible dimness. When I bought my first DSLR I chose a Sony partly because the EVF was so much better than the Nikon D3200s, but I also tried the equivalent entry level Pentax and THAT was a lot better than the Nikon too. The dinginess just makes the Nikon OVF feel even smaller than it really is.
you must be right Toni,but if I had the one camera I wouldnt have anything to compare it with :LOL:
 
OP
OP
Brazo
Messages
2,611
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
#33
Thanks all. Will probably push for the Nikon D3400 and vr kit lens. I do have a decent set of Nikon FF lenses that I could use on it but realistically the 18-55 should suffice for it’s intended use.
 
Messages
1,275
Name
Soeren
Edit My Images
Yes
#34
0.8 compared to 0.85 at 50mm on the d33/3400 A6000 0.7 at 35mm so shouldnt be much difference but you might find the A6000 is brighter cus of it being Mirrorless,I have had 2 A6000 and its a personel thing but still prefer the optical even on the lower bodies,WMMV :)
But the A6000 is a 100%coverage finder, the D3200 is 95%. Mayde small differences but put together the finder in the A6000 feels less cramped and tunnel like, feels bigger. Besides, try to do macros with both :) and there is more to it than just these numbers., the X-T3 has a 0.75x magnification but that evf is much better.
 
Last edited:
Messages
9,114
Edit My Images
Yes
#35
But the A6000 is a 100%coverage finder, the D3200 is 95%. Mayde small differences but put together the finder in the A6000 feels less cramped and tunnel like, feels bigger. Besides, try to do macros with both and there is more to it than just these numbers., the X-T3 has a 0.75x magnification but that evf is much better.
I can’t deny all that but still prefer optical generally :giggle:
 
Top