Another First DSLR Thread

I have been doing quite a lot of reading and research trying to narrow down which camera to purchase as my first DSLR. I will be coming up from a point and shoot and have played around a touch with changing the settings on this basic camera.

My interests now are most likely landscapes, photos during travel and maybe macros in the future.

I was originally considering a D5300 with a 18-140 lens, but it isn't exactly cheap considering many people seem to believe it can be quickly "outgrown".

I have also been looking at 7100 with same kit lens and wonder if this will be too big of an investment since I will be a new photographer and may loose interest in the hobby.

I have also considered buying a 3300 or 3200 refurbished to learn on and eventually upgrade to a d7100.

I handled the 7100 and the 5300, D3300 and D3200 and it certainly feels more substantial and sturdier.

I keep going back and forth and am probably spending too much time thinking about it.

What are your thoughts?

D3200/d3300

Maybe 5300 because of bracketing?

D7100 or 7000

Lens choice?

Thanks in advance!

This might just be because I'm looking at the same model but I'd say the D7100. It's still a popular model so even if you do lose interest you can be sure you'll get almost as much as you paid for it if you decide to sell it so you won't lose much. And if you don't lose interest you'll have the best (IMO) DX camera available. For now anyways.

Frank Heath said:

I have been doing quite a lot of reading and research trying to narrow down which camera to purchase as my first DSLR. I will be coming up from a point and shoot and have played around a touch with changing the settings on this basic camera.

Thanks in advance!

Click to expand...

I think, for the money ($450 with 18-55mm kit lens), you can't go wrong starting out with the D3200. Has most of the D3300 features for a lower price. You won't "outgrow" any modern DSLR camera, but later on you may want to focus on an aspect of photography where better tools can make life easier. You'll know when.

On the other hand a superzoom would probably work well for you too. I recently picked up a Fujifilm X-S1 and have been happy with the results. If you're mainly sharing pictures on the web just about any camera will do. What exactly, is it, that your point and shoot doesn't do that you expect a DSLR to do?

xlDeMoNiClx said:

This might just be because I'm looking at the same model but I'd say the D7100. It's still a popular model so even if you do lose interest you can be sure you'll get almost as much as you paid for it if you decide to sell it so you won't lose much. And if you don't lose interest you'll have the best (IMO) DX camera available. For now anyways.

Click to expand...

I noticed in your signature you have a D3100. Do you regret getting it instead of just going to a D7100?

Wolfeye said:

I think, for the money ($450 with 18-55mm kit lens), you can't go wrong starting out with the D3200. Has most of the D3300 features for a lower price. You won't "outgrow" any modern DSLR camera, but later on you may want to focus on an aspect of photography where better tools can make life easier. You'll know when.

On the other hand a superzoom would probably work well for you too. I recently picked up a Fujifilm X-S1 and have been happy with the results. If you're mainly sharing pictures on the web just about any camera will do. What exactly, is it, that your point and shoot doesn't do that you expect a DSLR to do?

Click to expand...

I was unhappy with low light performance. I enjoyed taking pictures during a trip to Europe and wondered if they would have came out better with a more sophisticated sensor.

Frank Heath said:

I noticed in your signature you have a D3100. Do you regret getting it instead of just going to a D7100?

Click to expand...

I've been thinking about it recently. When I got it, I thought that since I had never used one before I needed to get an entry-level in order to learn and then work my way up. Now I know that isn't necessarily true but to answer your question I'd say I regret not doing what you're doing with this thread: asking for other people's opinions instead of just asking myself more than I regret getting the D3100. It's outdated but still capable of taking great shots and despite being an amateur I have managed to take some good ones plus for someone on a budget it's a good choice.

If I knew what I know now back when I was in the market for a DSLR I definitely would have waited, saved up more and gotten the D7100 instead but I'm content with my choice for now.

I suggest get the 3300 with the kit lens. Play around with it, learn how to use the different settings. Buy some prime lenses like the Nikkor 35mm f1.8 lens. Most of the Nikon DSLR cameras are capable of producing great shots. This will keep you from putting out a big investment in case you decide not to pursue it as a hobby.

I shoot with a D7100 and my girlfriend now shoots with a D5300, having been upgraded from her D3200. Based on your post, my advice would be to go with either the D3300, or the D5300, and the 18-140mm as your kit lens.

The D3300 is a great camera and would serve you well. Certainly the least expensive. The D5300, in my opinion, hits the price vs performance "sweet spot" in the Nikon DX lineup. It's is a seriously powerful camera that you can grow into for some time to come. Either of these cameras are capable of delivering amazingly high-quality images.

The D7100 would be the next logical step up but what you're getting with the D7100, really, are a lot of "nice to haves" and a couple upgrades to the overall build. Some of the nice to haves are VERY nice to have, though; ones I would sorely miss if I had to shoot with something else, but they're nice-to-haves nonetheless in my opinion. Simply put, the D7100 is a camera for the serious enthusiast and the feature set, hence the price, reflect that.

Still, if your budget simply doesn't allow for the D7100, or if you're a little unsure how far you want to go with this, back off and go for the D5300. Again, I'd *highly* suggest the 18-140mm but if the budget is getting strained, opt instead for the 18-55mm VRII or the 35mm f/1.8G instead. Either of these would be excellent starting points for someone just getting started.

....

xlDeMoNiClx said:

I've been thinking about it recently. When I got it, I thought that since I had never used one before I needed to get an entry-level in order to learn and then work my way up. Now I know that isn't necessarily true but to answer your question I'd say I regret not doing what you're doing with this thread: asking for other people's opinions instead of just asking myself more than I regret getting the D3100. It's outdated but still capable of taking great shots and despite being an amateur I have managed to take some good ones plus for someone on a budget it's a good choice.

If I knew what I know now back when I was in the market for a DSLR I definitely would have waited, saved up more and gotten the D7100 instead but I'm content with my choice for now.

Click to expand...

That's pretty much exactly how I feel. My friend who got me interested in photography has a D3100 and takes some really nice pictures with it, so I figured what more could I want? The D3200 is a better camera and was within my price range so didn't think much more about it.
Now I wished I'd waited and got a D7100, I've already spent the difference on lenses and other bits and bobs. The low light capability is what I really would like to have, as I'm mostly interested in wildlife photography and find myself needing to bump my ISO up and getting noisy images with the D3200.

The one thing that's stops me kicking myself too much about not saving for the D7100, is that I had no idea how much I'd enjoy photography. Personally as a bit of a penny pincher I couldn't have spent that much on a camera not knowing if I'd lose interest.

Elliot87 said:

That's pretty much exactly how I feel. My friend who got me interested in photography has a D3100 and takes some really nice pictures with it, so I figured what more could I want? The D3200 is a better camera and was within my price range so didn't think much more about it.
Now I wished I'd waited and got a D7100, I've already spent the difference on lenses and other bits and bobs. The low light capability is what I really would like to have, as I'm mostly interested in wildlife photography and find myself needing to bump my ISO up and getting noisy images with the D3200.

The one thing that's stops me kicking myself too much about not saving for the D7100, is that I had no idea how much I'd enjoy photography. Personally as a bit of a penny pincher I couldn't have spent that much on a camera not knowing if I'd lose interest.

Click to expand...

Yeah it was a bit of a risk either way but now I know for sure that the D7100 would suit me well so I'm glad I got the cheap model to start and learn with.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk 4

Do both D3200/D3300 and D5200/D5300 have the same controls? What setting changes will I have to go into menu for that I would be able to have direct access with a D7100? Would these be more advanced features? Thanks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Been leaning towards a refurbished D5200 and 18-140 lens kit to start. GPS and WiFi doesn't seem like much to give up for the savings. But I was unsure of having filter removed and better iso performance. Will this be pretty negligible for a newbie?

The d7100/d7000 is a great buy. I quickly outgrew my d3200 after about six months and wanted more. You can get a used d3200 for a good price and flip it when you buy the d7000.

As such, all modern cameras take excellent pictures, provided you know how to. The difference between models is more to do with extra features and ruggedness than with image IQ. The latest generation - D3300/D5300/D7100 have better sensors and better processor compared to D3200/D5200/D7000, so your images are sharper and higher ISO performance better, and in some cases the video and burst rate faster.

The D3300 with its kit lense is a great buy for beginners. Add the 35mm F1.8 DX and you can take care of most shooting scenarios, except where you require longer reach.

One advantage of starting with D3300 is that it has the IQ of the more expensive models, but no frills. The cost is quite low, so it you want top sell it off (either because you want to getting out of DLSR, or want better controls), you will not loose much. After all how much can you loose when selling a $500 camera.

I have been using the D3300 for nearly 6 months. Yes there are features that I would love to have, but none of them are of overriding neccesity, I am doing pretty well without them. My son has a D300, so if features are needed I can always use it. But its weight and too many controls (now that I am used to D3300) are irritating. That I love the D3300 is evident from the fact that I have crossed 11,000 shots in less than 6 months.

I personally feel that the upgrade from D3300 is FX body and not a high end DX, as the FX bodies have most of what the high end DX bodies have and they have full size sensor, useful when you need wider perspective.

My girlfriend got tired of me researching cameras and purchased me a D5300 with the 18-55 and 55-300 lens kits for my birthday. I am having fun playing with the camera. I was actually hoping to get he 18-140 lens, but am happy with the two lenses. There are a ton of threads about the 55-300 vs 70-300 and I reviewed them all. My question would the better 70-300 lens be worth potentially seeming ungrateful by asking to return the 55-300 and pay the difference for the 70-300? I am not interested in shooting sports, but could possibly see my self shooting animals (birds). I do like the smaller/lighter lens. How much slower is the autofocus in the 55-300?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is an interesting thread on here about the 55-300 vs. the 70-300, worth finding. Personally, if I had one, it would not be worth the $ loss of switching, they are very close in performance.