Recommendations for new nikon.

Messages
398
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
Yes
So today I've been doing a touch of photography for my employer at an opening event... I've been shooting indoors without a flash, around f5.6 at ISO 400 to keep my shutter speed up using my own d3300.
Some great shots when I was able to get enough light for the shot, however in the shadows of some of the blue suits the noise is awful...
I do have a budget available for negotiation for a new camera for my company instead of using my own...

A few of the things I would like are as follows..
Has to be Nikon, I'm very comfortable with it and I am able to use my own lenses if required to save the company buying lenses which they may not use often.
It also has to be a DX as all of my lenses are DX.
I'm wanting something which can handle ISO of 800 - 1600 without too much noise as mine is horrendous in low light
it has to be fairly user friendly so maybe something with an auto mode incase anyone else uses it other than me.
Budget between 500 and 1000.
 
So today I've been doing a touch of photography for my employer at an opening event... I've been shooting indoors without a flash, around f5.6 at ISO 400 to keep my shutter speed up using my own d3300.
Some great shots when I was able to get enough light for the shot, however in the shadows of some of the blue suits the noise is awful...
I do have a budget available for negotiation for a new camera for my company instead of using my own...

A few of the things I would like are as follows..
Has to be Nikon, I'm very comfortable with it and I am able to use my own lenses if required to save the company buying lenses which they may not use often.
It also has to be a DX as all of my lenses are DX.
I'm wanting something which can handle ISO of 800 - 1600 without too much noise as mine is horrendous in low light
it has to be fairly user friendly so maybe something with an auto mode incase anyone else uses it other than me.
Budget between 500 and 1000.

Depends what you are shooting but a faster lens may be better, a 35mm 1.8 is around £100 IIRC.
 
Hi sorry I'm looking for a new camera, not lens.
Will be product photography, in regards to situ images of bathroom setups to physical products, along with occasional commercial photography.
 
The D3300 is a modern sensor. It really should not be struggling at ISO 400. Is your exposure okay?

An FX sensor is twice the size, which mean like for like, you'd only be gaining a 1 stop of advantage. Shooting at F/4 on your current camera would give you that. Shooting at f/2.8 would get you another stop, or shooting at f1.4 would get you another two stops again.

And if it's product photography, who not just stick it on a tripod and use base ISO and or additional light? Can't help thinking you'll get way better results from exploring much cheaper/free solutions first. Full frame will fix very little.
 
I was shooting in apeture priority today with no flash for the commercial stuff so no tripod... The exposure was okay I was using +2 exposire compensation to try and bring more brightness in aswell. But still struggled. I'll send some previews tomorrow.
 
I was shooting in apeture priority today with no flash for the commercial stuff so no tripod... The exposure was okay I was using +2 exposire compensation to try and bring more brightness in aswell. But still struggled. I'll send some previews tomorrow.

Were you shooting in raw or jpeg?
 
The D7200 takes some beating , plenty of used around for circa £500
 
Advantages of the Nikon D7200:
  • Better image quality: Scores markedly higher (5 points) in the DXO overall evaluation.
  • More dynamic range: Captures a broader range of light and dark details (1.8 EV of extra DR).
  • Better sound control: Has a headphone port that enables audio monitoring while recording.
  • More complete view: Has a viewfinder with a larger field of view (100% vs 95%).
  • Larger viewfinder image: Features a viewfinder with a higher magnification (0.63x vs 0.57x).
  • Easier setting verification: Features a control panel on top to check shooting parameters.
  • Larger screen: Has a bigger rear LCD (3.2" vs 3.0") for image review and settings control.
  • More detailed LCD: Has a higher resolution rear screen (1229k vs 921k dots).
  • Faster shutter: Has higher mechanical shutter speed (8000/sec vs 4000/sec) to freeze action.
  • Faster burst: Shoots at higher frequency (6 vs 5 flaps/sec) to capture the decisive moment.
  • Easier time-lapse photography: Has an intervalometer built-in for low frequency shooting.
  • Longer lasting: Gets more shots (1110 versus 700) out of a single battery charge.
  • Better sealing: Is splash and dust sealed for shooting in inclement weather conditions.
  • Easier file upload: Has wifi built in for automatic backup or image transfer to the web.
  • Easier device pairing: Supports NFC for fast wireless image transfer over short distances.
  • Greater peace of mind: Features a second card slot as a backup in case of memory card failure.
  • More modern: Was introduced somewhat (1 year and 1 month) more recently.
 
Hi sorry I'm looking for a new camera, not lens.
Will be product photography, in regards to situ images of bathroom setups to physical products, along with occasional commercial photography.

Before jumping into a new camera, i would take time to consider what you will be shooting and what you need. If you are getting poor pics at 400ISO its probably more to do with the lens and user than the camera. Jumping to a new camera will not improve things that much.
 
A couple of others have suggested looking at wider aperture lenses. I'd tend to agree. A new camera in the budget range you've mentioned isn't going to cure the problem. Noise is caused by insufficient light hitting the sensor. The D3300 is a very capable camera. I've got one myself. But in low light, I'd prefer to shoot with a 35mm f/1.8 rather than the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens.
 
And learning to use flash could be an idea too.
 
Try playing with the noise reduction settings. My D3400 was doing good pictures at iso 1600.

In terms of sensors, the d3300/3400/3500/5600/7200 is about as good as it gets. The 7500/500 looks like it has extra noise reduction or processing above iso 400 but the basic sensor is equivalent.
 
Apply noise reduction in software to the RAW files. Your probably looking at the RAW files as shot from the camera.
 
Advantages of the Nikon D7200:
  • Better image quality: Scores markedly higher (5 points) in the DXO overall evaluation.
  • More dynamic range: Captures a broader range of light and dark details (1.8 EV of extra DR).
  • Better sound control: Has a headphone port that enables audio monitoring while recording.
  • More complete view: Has a viewfinder with a larger field of view (100% vs 95%).
  • Larger viewfinder image: Features a viewfinder with a higher magnification (0.63x vs 0.57x).
  • Easier setting verification: Features a control panel on top to check shooting parameters.
  • Larger screen: Has a bigger rear LCD (3.2" vs 3.0") for image review and settings control.
  • More detailed LCD: Has a higher resolution rear screen (1229k vs 921k dots).
  • Faster shutter: Has higher mechanical shutter speed (8000/sec vs 4000/sec) to freeze action.
  • Faster burst: Shoots at higher frequency (6 vs 5 flaps/sec) to capture the decisive moment.
  • Easier time-lapse photography: Has an intervalometer built-in for low frequency shooting.
  • Longer lasting: Gets more shots (1110 versus 700) out of a single battery charge.
  • Better sealing: Is splash and dust sealed for shooting in inclement weather conditions.
  • Easier file upload: Has wifi built in for automatic backup or image transfer to the web.
  • Easier device pairing: Supports NFC for fast wireless image transfer over short distances.
  • Greater peace of mind: Features a second card slot as a backup in case of memory card failure.
  • More modern: Was introduced somewhat (1 year and 1 month) more recently.
This is the problem with the internet, people cut and paste blindly to serve their own agenda without actually thinking.

How many of the above points refer to the op’s low light issue?

If we take a closer look the low light abilities of the D3300 are actually ‘better’ than the D7200. Although to be fair any differences are more likely to be due to testing variance.
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D7200-versus-Nikon-D3300___1020_928

@The OP. You have the best sensor already so for low light your existing camera is as good as it gets for you.
 
I don't see much point in suggesting a 1.8 lens - the subjects require a smaller aperture, probably f 5.6 or f8.
A tripod seems the better option, or flash
 
I don't see much point in suggesting a 1.8 lens - the subjects require a smaller aperture, probably f 5.6 or f8.
A tripod seems the better option, or flash

The OP is shooting events as well as product stuff. Or at least that is my interpretation.
 
The OP is shooting events as well as product stuff. Or at least that is my interpretation.
I still tend to shoot at 2.8 or 4 at events, though admittedly I probably need a greater depth of field than the OP :)
I tend to stick at f4, 1/160 or there abouts and use ISO 3200 or 6400. The lighting keeps changing, but I need to get 100 to 120 images in a 2 minute routine - so there isn't much opportunity to change sttings - I'm concentrating on and anticipating the next pose.
 
i do think most/some of you are missing the point here

"I do have a budget available for negotiation for a new camera for my company instead of using my own..."

im assuming the OP can have his company buy him a new camera, so he doesn't have to wreck the personal body, so I could be wrong but i believe, the question is, "if I can get a free body bought for me by my company, which Nikon should I get"
 
i do think most/some of you are missing the point here

"I do have a budget available for negotiation for a new camera for my company instead of using my own..."

im assuming the OP can have his company buy him a new camera, so he doesn't have to wreck the personal body, so I could be wrong but i believe, the question is, "if I can get a free body bought for me by my company, which Nikon should I get"

It would help if I know how much budget.

If its a few hundred for a new camera in a UK shop then its impossible to get worthwhile ISO performance increase over a d3300.
 
i do think most/some of you are missing the point here

"I do have a budget available for negotiation for a new camera for my company instead of using my own..."

im assuming the OP can have his company buy him a new camera, so he doesn't have to wreck the personal body, so I could be wrong but i believe, the question is, "if I can get a free body bought for me by my company, which Nikon should I get"

Fair point. Budget of 500-1000 but presumably a lens or two is needed as well.
It would help if I know how much budget.

If its a few hundred for a new camera in a UK shop then its impossible to get worthwhile ISO performance increase over a d3300.

OP says 500-1000. Would be enough for an FX body (just) but not if lenses are needed.
 
Last edited:
OP Says it must be Nikon and it must be DX.

Has to be Nikon, I'm very comfortable with it and I am able to use my own lenses if required to save the company buying lenses which they may not use often.
It also has to be a DX as all of my lenses are DX.
I'm wanting something which can handle ISO of 800 - 1600 without too much noise as mine is horrendous in low light

I'd have thought any current model would suffice. But everyone has their own limits of acceptability when it comes to noise.
 
OP Says it must be Nikon and it must be DX.

Yeah, think I’d been reading another thread about upgrading to full frame. Oops. Apologies for the confusion.

However, point still stands that it doesn’t really get much better than a d3300 for crop sensors. Big improvements are unlikely to come from a new body alone.

But I’m still surprised there’s an issue. ISO 400, f5.6, +2ev and I’m assuming a shutter speed around 1/125 or faster sounds plenty bright enough to me. We’re not talking dim churches here. I’m amazed there’s a problem at all.
 
Yeah, think I’d been reading another thread about upgrading to full frame. Oops. Apologies for the confusion.

However, point still stands that it doesn’t really get much better than a d3300 for crop sensors. Big improvements are unlikely to come from a new body alone.

But I’m still surprised there’s an issue. ISO 400, f5.6, +2ev and I’m assuming a shutter speed around 1/125 or faster sounds plenty bright enough to me. We’re not talking dim churches here. I’m amazed there’s a problem at all.
I'd have thought anything from D90 onwards would cope with ISO 1600. Any current DX Nikon should. :thinking:
 
Yeah, think I’d been reading another thread about upgrading to full frame. Oops. Apologies for the confusion.

However, point still stands that it doesn’t really get much better than a d3300 for crop sensors. Big improvements are unlikely to come from a new body alone.

But I’m still surprised there’s an issue. ISO 400, f5.6, +2ev and I’m assuming a shutter speed around 1/125 or faster sounds plenty bright enough to me. We’re not talking dim churches here. I’m amazed there’s a problem at all.

agreed on this, my old D5100 didn't really suffer any real noticeable noise until 1600/3200 range but that was peeping, and i assume the D3300 being newer has a better sensor?
 
A new camera is not the answer for the 'issues' the op is having. Faster lenses maybe, and improvement in technique and controlling the lighting probably more important.
 
Hi guys,

thanks for the response, I've had a good look through the comments and a good look through the photos again.....
Might be a bit of a daft question here... but can a lens directly affect noise?
Example, If i have an 18-55 shooting at F3.5 at 35mm.

And I had for an example.. a DX Sigma 35mm F1.4 Art lens, shooting at F3.5...

I would expect the sigma to give a much sharper shot, much less chromatic aberration and less lens distortion for example..

Would the noise be the same on both of these? I would have guessed not as it's the same settings, the same sensor, the same aperture and shutter speed... So in theory the light and noise should be exactly the same?

Surely only sharpness would be different?



"if I can get a free body bought for me by my company, which Nikon should I get"
This is exactly that... I don't want to go to my company and say "you'll need a full frame camera costing you £1500, plus you'll need a £300 lens, oh but if you want wide angle shots you'll need to get a kit lens with it as well, oh and you want real close up product shots, you'll need to spend £300+ for a macro lens
I currently use my own camera and lenses, however the environment I work in is dusty so i'm forever cleaning my body and forever conscious about dust on the sensor etc....
The camera would live at work with probably an 18-55 kit lens... If for any reason other lenses are needed, I can bring my own lens in, instead of bringing my full camera bag in..
This gives work options to use my lenses if required, and like-wise, if I had the need to use this camera instead of mine, I've got an option to borrow it for a day or a weekend.


A new camera is not the answer for the 'issues' the op is having.

As mentioned above, this is purchasing a new camera for my work place... not to replace my own camera. For the work I personally do, I do portrait shots of my family and some macro work, my f2.8 Macro or my 35 and 85mm f1.8 are more than ample for this and noise isn't an issue as I generally shoot in natural light with iso of 100.

500-1000 but presumably a lens or two is needed as well.

I'm planning on a kit lens to keep at work all of the time for general use, and if I require anything extra i'll use my own personal lenses with works body.

And learning to use flash could be an idea too.

I'd previously done some test shots in that environment, and was able to achieve f5.6 and maintain a shutter speed of 100+ at iso 400 so I never brought a flash thinking this would be okay... With my test shots it seemed to perform better. I'm assuming this is because I didn't take into account black and blue suits and blue work uniforms. So i never thought I had the need to bring a camera.

You have the best sensor already so for low light your existing camera is as good as it gets for you.
i would take time to consider what you will be shooting and what you need. If you are getting poor pics at 400ISO its probably more to do with the lens and user than the camera. Jumping to a new camera will not improve things that much.
But I’m still surprised there’s an issue. ISO 400, f5.6, +2ev and I’m assuming a shutter speed around 1/125


In regards to these 3 quotes... I do believe some of this is down to user error... I know the 18-55 is only a kit lens but I did require the wide aperture. With the event it was in a showroom and I did want to get some of the background in focus and other people mingling etc.. hence using f5.6.

I do think my problem has perhaps been shooting in aperture priority mode.. I thought originally I would be best controlling this and letting the camera do the work for me... I believe what has happened is because of fluorescent lights dotted around I should have maybe used spot metering or center weighted metering to ensure exposure wasn't taking into account the lighting... Obviously shooting in full auto I would have been able to manually dial this in and increase exposure via shutter and ISO instead of bumping it up in lightroom.
I have also found that in Lightroom when I "auto expose" it is massively under exposing. So I am assuming this is the problem I've had.
 
Your problem is a lack of light, and no camera body is really going to be able to compensate for that.

Image noise (photon shot noise) is approximately equal to the SqRt of signal strength (light intensity)... so for example; if signal strength is at 4 noise is at 2 (50%), and if signal strength is at 100 noise is at 10 (10%). And dark areas (fabrics/etc) are dark because they are absorbing light, so the signal strength in those areas of a scene/image are automatically lower.

Because your camera has a modern sensor with a very high level of efficiency and accuracy, no other DX Nikon is going to be a notable improvement. Your only viable option is to increase the light to the sensor (add light, wider aperture, slower SS)... ISO is *not* light and it's not really part of your issue...
 
Last edited:
Might be a bit of a daft question here... but can a lens directly affect noise?
Example, If i have an 18-55 shooting at F3.5 at 35mm.

And I had for an example.. a DX Sigma 35mm F1.4 Art lens, shooting at F3.5...

I would expect the sigma to give a much sharper shot, much less chromatic aberration and less lens distortion for example..

Would the noise be the same on both of these? I would have guessed not as it's the same settings, the same sensor, the same aperture and shutter speed... So in theory the light and noise should be exactly the same?

There's a couple of factors here. First thing is that not all lenses with the same f stop transmit the same amount of light, with some passing more for apparently the same aperture than others. So you might find that something like a Sigma ART could transmit more light at f3.5 than the 18-55 kit lens due to differences in lens design - then again you might not.

Second thing, related regarding noise, is that underexposure makes it worse. So if you're underexposing by a stop you would get less noise from boosting sensitivity (ISO) than using the apparently lower sensitivity level that one might expect to be cleaner.

Given the budget you've listed, I'd have suggested getting another similar body and looking for a better quality 'standard' zoom (something like a Sigma or Tamron 17-55 f2.8) that *may* transmit a little more light. For the interior (non-people) shots then a tripod would allow you to stop down much more & get better depth of field without camera shake - this would all be within the budget you gave.
 
Last edited:
Watch out for the High Dynamic Range settings. It gives a big boost to the dark areas which will be added to any other increases in brightness you are applying.

Anyway, D7200 plus af-p VR kit lens plus a set of macro extension tubes with contacts should be about 700. Upgrade the kit lens to a sigma 2.8 OS 17-50 would be a good option.

Getting a stabilised lens will help you drop the shutter speed on handheld shots.
 
Might be a bit of a daft question here... but can a lens directly affect noise?
Example, If i have an 18-55 shooting at F3.5 at 35mm.

And I had for an example.. a DX Sigma 35mm F1.4 Art lens, shooting at F3.5...

I would expect the sigma to give a much sharper shot, much less chromatic aberration and less lens distortion for example..

Would the noise be the same on both of these? I would have guessed not as it's the same settings, the same sensor, the same aperture and shutter speed... So in theory the light and noise should be exactly the same?

Surely only sharpness would be different?
It seems to me that either you've managed to confuse yourself regarding which side of the proposition you believe, or a typo has crept in. (I've highlighted the bit that's confusing.)

Would the noise be the same? Yes. It's not really dependent on the lens.
 
I'll send some previews tomorrow.
That would really help. Everybody here is surprised that you're getting a noise problem at 400 ISO, so it would be good to see what's actually happening.
 
Second thing, related regarding noise, is that underexposure makes it worse. So if you're underexposing by a stop you would get less noise from boosting sensitivity (ISO) than using the apparently lower sensitivity level that one might expect to be cleaner.
That's only marginally true with the D3300 (less than 3/4 EV), and only up to about ISO 800... after that it's quite flat (invariant).
But it is true that using a lower ISO provides no real benefit (unless trying to save highlights).
 
Back
Top