It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
Or, if you want bigger, bulkier but weather sealed etc try an older model - like a d300. I use a d200 and while its precise, quiet, smooth and amazingly well built the sensor tech is old - you won't pull much out of shadows and noise is fairly bad by iso 400.
All that said - are you quite a casual shooter? If so, have you seen the fuji xe2? Cracking thing.
If you honestly can't see yourself using the extra features the next model up brings, then you may as well buy as new as possible, possibly even seek out a brand new D3300 etc.
Nikon vs Canon? I'm not sure there's much in it, I went for Nikon because my dad has a Nikon DSLR too, so we're in theory able to swap lenses (he has more lenses).
https://www.lcegroup.co.uk/Used/Nikon-D5200-+-18-55-VR_159941.html
is in your budget. Or you could buy a D5100 body and an 18-105 lens separately for a decent setup for £310 or so: https://www.lcegroup.co.uk/Used/Nikon-D5100-Body-Only_159188.html and https://www.lcegroup.co.uk/Used/Nikon-18-105mm-AF-s-VR-F3.5-5.6_160318.html
Figure out what you want to shoot. Go shop and get a feel for the different brands.
She started out on a Nikon D3100 then upgraded to a D7000 then a D700 and now she's using a D750 and now she wants another
She's got constant camera gas which works out well for me if I want gear too
So is Nikon generally the choice brand even at the lowest price point?
I'm not against buying used but would not buy from ebay, thanks @PaulC2 for the link above, worth thinking about.
There are reasons to pick - fuji have great out of camera jpg files with film simulation and they look really nice. Great lenses, too - the xe-2 can be upgraded to xe-2s specs via firmware too.
Canon have the fastest lenses - more f/1.2 kit. Meaningless for most folks to be fair. A 56mm 1.2 fuji is cheaper and has the exact field of view and depth of field as an 85mm f/1.8 on full frame. So if you want backgrounds to melt, you're better off with longer lenses than ultra fast really.
Nikon have the widest dynamic range sensors currently, and the flash system works better for strobe users (rear curtain works, unlike canon where it just doesn't unless it's a canon ttl flash).
So... Frankly, pick one you like. To be honest, the fuji would get my vote. Just carry a spare battery. It's small, the lenses are excellent and the film sims really do great, great looking shots.
I’m so bored I might as well be listening to Pink Floyd
When people talk about the "speed" of a lens, they aren't referring to the shutter speed (which, at 1/1000th of a second, is more than fast enough for pretty much any application), but the amount of light that a lens lets in at a given focal length. "Faster" lenses let more light in, and give two main benefits: Ability to shoot in low light (more light in = shorter shutter speed for the same amount of light = less blur/camera shake) and shorter depth of field (meaning you can get your subject in focus with a pleasant blurry background).
If you mean "Will it take lots of pictures quickly when I hold down the button?", then the D3300 recommended will do 5fps (this surprised me - my 3100 will only do 3), rising to 12fps on the D5 (pro kit).
The admittedly cheap digi cameras I have owned had really bad shutter lag and the last time I looked at a camera (maybe 6 or 7 years ago) it was still a problem on cheaper models. So I used to dig out a film camera to take to the F1. And had the hassle of sending it off for development etc.
I’m so bored I might as well be listening to Pink Floyd
I don't know if decent bridge or MILC cameras have addressed these areas but its obviously worth a look if you are serious.
Regarding "fast shooting", there's several areas which could be defined as measures of speed: shutter lag; autofocus speed; amount of light onto the photosensor (ie aperture of lens), ISO sensitivity meaning shutter speed can be very short for a given aperture and exposure; and continuous shooting speed. DSLRs tend to be good at all these aspects, obviously a £5000 top-of-the-range camera is going to have more capability than a £300 basic model though.
But luckily, sync speeds of 1/200th can freeze lots of things well. Another method is using a very fast flash - not good for formula one.
For focusing, you need to switch to manual and rattle off a few shots if you want it to shoot without hunting for focus.
It's often the case that you are forced to choose between discounted old models and new lower-end models which are around the same price point. Then I get bogged down in thinking I need this or that feature, and then it's a "for just a little bit more I could have XYZ" story. For example the D3300 can be had for £399 with the VR lens (do I need that? It's just 20 odd more) and the Nikon accessory pack.
Are the kit lenses really that worthless?