Entry level DSLR
Discussion
My niece is 15 and really getting into photography so I would quite like to buy her an entry level DSLR. Having done a quick google and look around it would seem the Nikon D3400 seems to be where to put the sensible money. Would you guys agree with that? I have also seen the same units sold as a “kit” with a Tamron 70-300 lens alongside the standard 18-55 lens. Is the Tamron lens a decent thing or worth paying more for the Nikon original in that size?
I bought a Canon 1100D when I started out 3 years ago. The current equivalent is the 1300D which is the most basic/cheapest model Canon make. To me there is very little difference between this model and the next step up, which in Canon's range is now the 700D which is about 50% more expensive. I wouldn't bother with any of the EF-S lenses without IS (I had the kit lens without IS which I sold and replaced with one with IS) as there is a big enough difference in those for the lack of IS to be annoying. I would also just stick to the "Canon" lenses as three EF-S lenses (18-55, 55-250, 10-18) will cover a huge range that should keep a beginner happy for a couple of years at least. These all produce nice photos, are reasonably well made (but not compared to the more expensive lenses) and very light.
Afraid I know little about Nikon, but there is very little to choose between Canon and Nikon so hopefully some of the above information will apply to the Nikon range too.
Afraid I know little about Nikon, but there is very little to choose between Canon and Nikon so hopefully some of the above information will apply to the Nikon range too.
Not a lot of difference between Canon and Nikon, so go for the best deal. Personally, for someone starting out, I'd recommend a single lens that covers the widest range possible so that she is not forever changing lenses and risking getting dust in the camera body. No lens is a perfect "one stop shop", but something like a Tamron 18 - 270m might work well for her. Once more proficient a good macro might be in order.
I had a look at the Canon and discounted it in my head because for pretty much the same money as the Nikon you get 18mp instead of 24mp and the Nikon has SnapBridge to enable easy transfer of the images that the canon does not.
I agree with the idea of widest range possible in the lens so will look at that but my question was more around the quality of the Tamron lenses as it’s not a manufacturer I remember hearing about back in the day of film SLRs when I was into photography.
I agree with the idea of widest range possible in the lens so will look at that but my question was more around the quality of the Tamron lenses as it’s not a manufacturer I remember hearing about back in the day of film SLRs when I was into photography.
Its actually quite hard to buy a bad camera these days, my advice would be to take her to a bricks and mortar store, and get the cameras in her hands, buy the one that she is most comfortable with.
The only technical things I would consider at this stage are Higher ISO capability, teenagers will want to shoot a lot in darker places (my step daughter has ended up doing a lot of gig photography), and that it has reasonable video capability, again another teenager like to do.
The only technical things I would consider at this stage are Higher ISO capability, teenagers will want to shoot a lot in darker places (my step daughter has ended up doing a lot of gig photography), and that it has reasonable video capability, again another teenager like to do.
craigjm said:
I had a look at the Canon and discounted it in my head because for pretty much the same money as the Nikon you get 18mp instead of 24mp and the Nikon has SnapBridge to enable easy transfer of the images that the canon does not.
I agree with the idea of widest range possible in the lens so will look at that but my question was more around the quality of the Tamron lenses as it’s not a manufacturer I remember hearing about back in the day of film SLRs when I was into photography.
Don't get hung up on the number of megapixels. It's not necessarily an indication of picture quality.I agree with the idea of widest range possible in the lens so will look at that but my question was more around the quality of the Tamron lenses as it’s not a manufacturer I remember hearing about back in the day of film SLRs when I was into photography.
When I was looking I was strongly advised to buy a second hand enthusiasts level DSLR as they are in some ways easier to use, more ergonomic and built better.
Have a look on MPB.com
Take a look at the HDEW site: https://www.hdewcameras.co.uk
Nikon D3400 for just £275.00
Nikon 18-300 lens should cover most of her needs for a few years at £469.00
Nikon D3400 for just £275.00
Nikon 18-300 lens should cover most of her needs for a few years at £469.00
48Valves said:
Don't get hung up on the number of megapixels. It's not necessarily an indication of picture quality.
When I was looking I was strongly advised to buy a second hand enthusiasts level DSLR as they are in some ways easier to use, more ergonomic and built better.
Have a look on MPB.com
Yeah I know what you mean about MP. Not buying used it’s a Christmas present I would spend what’s required but with the possibility she may be bored of it in two years time I don’t want to spend a grand When I was looking I was strongly advised to buy a second hand enthusiasts level DSLR as they are in some ways easier to use, more ergonomic and built better.
Have a look on MPB.com
DavidY said:
Its actually quite hard to buy a bad camera these days, my advice would be to take her to a bricks and mortar store, and get the cameras in her hands, buy the one that she is most comfortable with.
The only technical things I would consider at this stage are Higher ISO capability, teenagers will want to shoot a lot in darker places (my step daughter has ended up doing a lot of gig photography), and that it has reasonable video capability, again another teenager like to do.
Yeah I had considered the video thing. ISO tip is useful thanks. Might take her to jessops then buy it online The only technical things I would consider at this stage are Higher ISO capability, teenagers will want to shoot a lot in darker places (my step daughter has ended up doing a lot of gig photography), and that it has reasonable video capability, again another teenager like to do.
I prefer Nikon, partially because I think it's a great brand, but I also love the back catalogue of lenses, I like the fact a lens currently on my old F2 will go straight on my d7100.
That said when I was looking for the d7100 I did look long and hard at the Canons and the only thing that put me off was they didn't fit my hand as well, I think that in the same way as the world of shooting you either "fit" Beretta or Browning, you either fit Nikon or Canon.
So I got the d7100 and then a year later bought Sarah a D3300, to be honest the D3300 would have done me just as well but man maths. In short you will be happy with either brand but I've been very happy with Nikons.
That said when I was looking for the d7100 I did look long and hard at the Canons and the only thing that put me off was they didn't fit my hand as well, I think that in the same way as the world of shooting you either "fit" Beretta or Browning, you either fit Nikon or Canon.
So I got the d7100 and then a year later bought Sarah a D3300, to be honest the D3300 would have done me just as well but man maths. In short you will be happy with either brand but I've been very happy with Nikons.
As many have said, little to no difference between Canon and Nikon results. So, take her to a proper camera shop, let her handle some cameras, and more importantly see which menu system she has a preference for.
Then... I've no experience of current superzoom lenses, so won't say anything about them. However, my advice would be to budget for a 50mm f/1.8. Even a used one. These entry level dSLR cameras with their smaller sensors, when combined with a superzoom and its limited aperture size, a pretty awful when trying to be creative with depth of field. A cheap 50mm will give her some of that, and is great in low light.
And to wildoliver: Nikon's back catalogue of lenses is a nightmare for the newcomer. Trying to work out which lenses work fully on which body isn't easy.
With Canon, every single EF and EF-S lens produced since 1987 will work on any EF-S camera, and every single EF lens produced since 1987 will work on every single EF body ever made, film or digital.
Then... I've no experience of current superzoom lenses, so won't say anything about them. However, my advice would be to budget for a 50mm f/1.8. Even a used one. These entry level dSLR cameras with their smaller sensors, when combined with a superzoom and its limited aperture size, a pretty awful when trying to be creative with depth of field. A cheap 50mm will give her some of that, and is great in low light.
And to wildoliver: Nikon's back catalogue of lenses is a nightmare for the newcomer. Trying to work out which lenses work fully on which body isn't easy.
With Canon, every single EF and EF-S lens produced since 1987 will work on any EF-S camera, and every single EF lens produced since 1987 will work on every single EF body ever made, film or digital.
Edited by Tony1963 on Sunday 29th October 08:42
Tony1963 said:
And to wildoliver: Nikon's back catalogue of lenses is a nightmare for the newcomer. Trying to work out which lenses work fully on which body isn't easy.
The higher the Nikon body the more old lenses it will be able to work with, but I see no need for the OP's niece to have antiques hanging off the front. If autofocus on an entry-level body is important, AF-S lenses have been around for ages now and there are plenty of s/h ones around. In short, it's not a problem.NB I might actually support the OP's idea of 18-55 and 70-300. It will help her get to grips with focal lengths and think a bit more, rather than just twisting a ring.
Simpo Two said:
NB I might actually support the OP's idea of 18-55 and 70-300. It will help her get to grips with focal lengths and think a bit more, rather than just twisting a ring.
That was my thought from the oldManual days that having two lenses made me consider my composition more.
craigjm said:
Next question.... noticed the entry level Nikon and the Canon equivalent both have the requirement for separate flash like the old manual SLRs. I assume they are all universal with the shoe fitting like in the old days? Are they different units for a digital device?
Eh wot? The 3400 has a built-in flash...But yes, they have a hot shoe as well, for beefier units, just like film SLRs.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff