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 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.
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.
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.
alock said:
If your branch is anything like ours, then you might want to try somewhere else instead.
Our Jessops seems to be staffed by part time students with little interest/experience in photography.
Our local London Camera Exchange (not in London) is vastly more knowledgeable and offer real advice.
Don’t disagree with that. Just want to get hands on with the two so she can decide which she is more comfortable with Our Jessops seems to be staffed by part time students with little interest/experience in photography.
Our local London Camera Exchange (not in London) is vastly more knowledgeable and offer real advice.
Monty Python said:
One thing that may be of significance for a 15-yo is the weight - the A68 is the lightest at 610g while the Canon weighs in at 704g (body only). Something to bear in mind when carrying it around and using it.
That’s a good point will make sure we cover that when she has all three units in front of her Monty Python said:
One last thought - the Canon 1300D is not really a direct competitor to the other two - did you choose is as a lower cost option? If not, might I suggest the 750D as a closer competitor to the Nikon and Sony.
That’s a good point. The 750d didn’t feature in my initial googling all the canon noise was about the 1300DOK we are going to go got the Nikon D3400 so just looking around for deals now. Will probably go twin lens set up. Have seen the body with an 18-55 and 70-300. All the kits I have seen like this have the 18-55 as a Nikon lens with a VR lens which I understand is image stabilisation. The bundled 70-300 lens is often a Tamron lens that is DI LD. what is that? Is it the Tamron version of image stabilisation?
I am expecting it to be as good as the price suggests. I’m sensible to recognise that it wouldn’t be as good as the Nikon equivalent which is £450. I was just wondering what the terminology meant because I think it would be annoying for instance to have image stabilisation on one lens and not on the other.
[quote]Nothing to get excited about. Unless you buy a very fast lens or don't mind using a tripod all the time I wouldn't bother with any non VR/IS long lens - save your cash for a better lens in the future/quote]
OK thanks. As I said at the top this isn’t for me it’s for my 15yo niece for Christmas. So it would appear the Tamron lens is the one you say is on Amazon for £90 so in a bundle it isn’t any cheaper. Would this be the Nikon equivalent with VR? From what I have read and you say then the extra £200 or so would be money well spent
OK thanks. As I said at the top this isn’t for me it’s for my 15yo niece for Christmas. So it would appear the Tamron lens is the one you say is on Amazon for £90 so in a bundle it isn’t any cheaper. Would this be the Nikon equivalent with VR? From what I have read and you say then the extra £200 or so would be money well spent
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff