Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

photography newbie.. can you give me some advice (buying a camera) watch

Announcements
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by number23)
    hi

    thanks, i got this one off ebay for around £120
    its pretty good, entry level dslr
    Attachment 480207
    im actually getting quite into photography, and doing stage photography and stuff for the student newspaper so i wanna get something better

    im going to seel the other one, and up my budge to 200-250 ish.... so would you suggest looking at Nikon d100 range?

    cheers (im still pretty clueless )
    I had that Sony DSLR. Cracking entry DSLR! Mine lasted me about 5 years before I needed to upgrade to something better and I couldn't get more from it. Sold it for a lot less than you paid too
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gofre)
    He didn't ask about a 5D, he asked about a 6MP crop camera from 13 years ago which has fallen behind modern cameras in image quality, resolution, ISO performance and features. Would I rather have a 5D over a 1200D? Yes. Would I rather have a D100 over a D3200? Hell no.

    You've already had this discussion once with someone who made the exact same points I would have made, I have no desire to repeat that discussion with you now.
    Hi

    Ive narrowed it down to the D300 and D3200

    Im interested in high quality photos, also one that can handle low lighting for stage photography

    What do you think?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by number23)
    Hi

    Ive narrowed it down to the D300 and D3200

    Im interested in high quality photos, also one that can handle low lighting for stage photography

    What do you think?
    For low light, go with the D3200. The D300 is very old and has very poor ISO performance due to its old censor, however the D3200 doesn't have very good low light capabilities either as it is till only a DX sensor. The D300 will have more 'PRO' features as at the time of release it was a pro body but it doesn't sound like you will be needing many of these features.

    I would go with the D3200. It is also 10x better for video than the D300 if you were ever try that.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nbrooks2014)
    I really wish that you would stop recommending new cameras as they are nowhere near as good as the older more professional ones that you can get on the used market. Which would rather buy? A Canon 5d or a 1200d?
    5D over 1200D. D3200 or similar over D300.

    Your generalised statement that new cameras are 'nowhere near as good as the older more professional ones' is wrong. Newer cameras of the same sensor size (and after some time even the ones with smaller sensors) usually have better image quality and not so good controls and features. So it really depends on how old the older camera is. Taking a D7100 (2013) over a D3300 (2014) is a no-brainer, taking a D300 (2007!) over a D3200 (2012) is stupid. The former came out over eight years ago and has an image quality to go with it. There is no point in buying a totally outdated camera that you can hardly use at ISO800 just for better controls and it being more 'professional'.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sir Fox)
    5D over 1200D. D3200 or similar over D300.

    Your generalised statement that new cameras are 'nowhere near as good as the older more professional ones' is wrong. Newer cameras of the same sensor size (and after some time even the ones with smaller sensors) usually have better image quality and not so good controls and features. So it really depends on how old the older camera is. Taking a D7100 (2013) over a D3300 (2014) is a no-brainer, taking a D300 (2007!) over a D3200 (2012) is stupid. The former came out over eight years ago and has an image quality to go with it. There is no point in buying a totally outdated camera that you can hardly use at ISO800 just for better controls and it being more 'professional'.
    I have used ALL of the Nikon cameras I have talked about including the D3200 and the D300 is superior if you actually know something about light manipulation and how to use a Camera! Also the D3200 is simply too difficult to use and the extended compatibility of lenses the D300 makes it the obvious choice. In addition the D300 will hold its value far better than the amateur D3200. I can't see why you would choose a new amateur camera over an older pro. I recently took the plunge and bought a full-frame D700 (2008) over the crop D7100 (2013). My Dad owns the D7100 so I have used it extensively and the D700 is superior unless your a 'videographer' that wants to use your DSLR for video. However if I was using the retail prices that all of you recommend I would have only been able to afford a D5500, which is worse in every way that a photographer would want. The newer generation of amateur cameras just have a load of features that people who are buying their first camera would find appealing. Don't get me wrong the D7100 is a great camera if I had bought one I wouldn't have been disappointed but the D700 is better for an experienced photographer, which is why I bought it. I will admit that the D300's ISO performance is poor to say the least, but what about the D90? The ISO performance is as good on the D90 as the D3200 and it has the added advantages of dual command dials, in built focus motor, top LCD, larger viewfinder, a better buffer in burst mode and a higher frame rate over the D3200. I find it ridiculous that someone would buy the D3200 over the D300. Also I could use either my brother's D300 or my D700 to smash the s**t out of any of your amateur bodies. I think I should leave it there, but I have made my point!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TomSmith98)
    For low light, go with the D3200. The D300 is very old and has very poor ISO performance due to its old censor, however the D3200 doesn't have very good low light capabilities either as it is till only a DX sensor. The D300 will have more 'PRO' features as at the time of release it was a pro body but it doesn't sound like you will be needing many of these features.

    I would go with the D3200. It is also 10x better for video than the D300 if you were ever try that.
    The D300 doesn't have video. Anyway you buy a DSLR for taking photos not for video as the quality isn't there.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nbrooks2014)
    I have used ALL of the Nikon cameras I have talked about including the D3200 and the D300 is superior if you actually know something about light manipulation and how to use a Camera! Also the D3200 is simply too difficult to use and the extended compatibility of lenses the D300 makes it the obvious choice. In addition the D300 will hold its value far better than the amateur D3200. I can't see why you would choose a new amateur camera over an older pro. I recently took the plunge and bought a full-frame D700 (2008) over the crop D7100 (2013). My Dad owns the D7100 so I have used it extensively and the D700 is superior unless your a 'videographer' that wants to use your DSLR for video. However if I was using the retail prices that all of you recommend I would have only been able to afford a D5500, which is worse in every way that a photographer would want. The newer generation of amateur cameras just have a load of features that people who are buying their first camera would find appealing. Don't get me wrong the D7100 is a great camera if I had bought one I wouldn't have been disappointed but the D700 is better for an experienced photographer, which is why I bought it. I will admit that the D300's ISO performance is poor to say the least, but what about the D90? The ISO performance is as good on the D90 as the D3200 and it has the added advantages of dual command dials, in built focus motor, top LCD, larger viewfinder, a better buffer in burst mode and a higher frame rate over the D3200. I find it ridiculous that someone would buy the D3200 over the D300. Also I could use either my brother's D300 or my D700 to smash the s**t out of any of your amateur bodies. I think I should leave it there, but I have made my point!
    so many numbers :O
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nbrooks2014)
    I will admit that the D300's ISO performance is poor to say the least ...
    Oh, is it? Because I bet the TO won't care considering she wants to do STAGE PHOTOGRAPHY.

    ... but what about the D90?
    Now we're talking.

    I find it ridiculous that someone would buy the D3200 over the D300.
    I don't. Not for low light, at least. For fair weather outdoor pursuits, maybe.

    Also I could use either my brother's D300 or my D700 to smash the s**t out of any of your amateur bodies.
    I doubt it would leave as much as a scratch on my K3, but whatever :rolleyes:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sir Fox)
    Oh, is it? Because I bet the TO won't care considering she wants to do STAGE PHOTOGRAPHY.



    Now we're talking.



    I don't. Not for low light, at least. For fair weather outdoor pursuits, maybe.



    I doubt it would leave as much as a scratch on my K3, but whatever :rolleyes:
    ive gone with the d3200 double lens kit with18-55, 55-300 lenses...

    i cant wait to try it out plus the second lens would come in handy for stage photogrpahy
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=Sir Fox;60951125]Oh, is it? Because I bet the TO won't care considering she wants to do STAGE PHOTOGRAPHY.



    Now we're talking.



    I don't. Not for low light, at least. For fair weather outdoor pursuits, maybe.



    I doubt it would leave as much as a scratch on my K3, but whatever :rolleyes:[/QUOTE

    So you agree that the D90 is a superior camera to the D3200. Also if your doing stage photography the D3200's ISO performance wont cut it either. Nothing short of a D700, D4, D3, D800 or D3s would cut it. So let me run this by you. If I offered you a used D700 (full-frame 2008) or new D5500 (crop sensor), which would you buy, I jist want to know how much you defend these toy cameras that you reccomend. Oh and by the way pentax build quality is nothing compared to Nikon or Canon, I have used a K3 and I was not impressed.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by number23)
    ive gone with the d3200 double lens kit with18-55, 55-300 lenses...

    i cant wait to try it out plus the second lens would come in handy for stage photogrpahy
    Oh, ahem ... not sure about that If you had asked us I would have recommended getting a fast (i.e. large aperture = being able to gather more light) prime lens instead. The 55-300 is more of a wildlife, maybe sports lens. But it isn't fast enough for low light photography. It will be fine for taking stage pictures in bright sunshine, but I assume your stage photography will be in the evenings and/or indoors?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sir Fox)
    Oh, is it? Because I bet the TO won't care considering she wants to do STAGE PHOTOGRAPHY.



    Now we're talking.



    I don't. Not for low light, at least. For fair weather outdoor pursuits, maybe.



    I doubt it would leave as much as a scratch on my K3, but whatever :rolleyes:

    So you agree that the D90 is a superior camera to the D3200. Also if your doing stage photography the D3200's ISO performance wont cut it either. Nothing short of a D700, D4, D3, D800 or D3s would cut it. So let me run this by you. If I offered you a used D700 (full-frame 2008) or new D5500 (crop sensor), which would you buy, I jist want to know how much you defend these toy cameras that you reccomend. Oh and by the way pentax build quality is nothing compared to Nikon or Canon, I have used a K3 and I was not impressed.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I've owned a lot of Nikon SLR And DSLR over the years.

    Recently I've had a D90, D700, F100 and F6. I currently shoot with only a D810 and I find to to be an almost perfect allrounder which can handle essentially any kind of photography in any situation - it has removed almost all of the limitations of earlier models.

    (Original post by nbrooks2014)
    So you agree that the D90 is a superior camera to the D3200. Also if your doing stage photography the D3200's ISO performance wont cut it either. Nothing short of a D700, D4, D3, D800 or D3s would cut it. So let me run this by you. If I offered you a used D700 (full-frame 2008) or new D5500 (crop sensor), which would you buy, I jist want to know how much you defend these toy cameras that you reccomend. Oh and by the way pentax build quality is nothing compared to Nikon or Canon, I have used a K3 and I was not impressed.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nbrooks2014)
    Oh and by the way pentax build quality is nothing compared to Nikon or Canon, I have used a K3 and I was not impressed.
    Aaahahahaha - I stopped bothering to reply to your other points when I read this bit. The K3's build quality is clearly above anything Canon sells except for the 7D Mk II, 5D Mk III and 1Dx, and closer to but still better than Nikon's APS-C flagships (D7200), at least since they discontinued the D300 line. The Canon equivalent (70D) is a toy in comparison My friend who owns one confirms it, and so do tons of reviews.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by number23)
    ive gone with the d3200 double lens kit with18-55, 55-300 lenses...

    i cant wait to try it out plus the second lens would come in handy for stage photogrpahy
    I can't help but feel that you have wasted your money. I bought a D3100 as my first DSLR about 2 years ago now and within 8 months I got a D90 and 11 months after that I got a D700. I wished I had cut the crap and got a larger body in the first place that can drive all lenses, even if it was older. I addition you will find that the 55-300 won't cut it for stage photography and you will want a lens with a wider aperture so that you can use faster shutter speeds. With the camera that you have bought you will be spending a minium of £700 for a f/2.8 telephoto lens, that can auto focus with your D3200; whereas if you had bought the D300 or D90 (my recommendations) you would be able to by the nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D lens and it still be able to auto focus, which would cost you between £250 and £350 on eBay. The D300 and D90 would have saved you a lot of money in the long run!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Personally I still use a bridge DSLR, Fujifilm finepix hs10, it is a very good camera for a beginner as it is very simple and I think you can get it for about £100 nowadays. However, if you want higher end, I would say look at Nikon L840 Coolpix as a starter, its about £130 pounds and will do all your needed functions.

    Just read what you have gone for, and personally think you will find that a bit redundant in a few months time when you realize a bridge or bridge compact would've been cheaper. But hey for a beginner, good choice
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sw651)
    Personally I still use a bridge DSLR, Fujifilm finepix hs10, it is a very good camera for a beginner as it is very simple and I think you can get it for about £100 nowadays. However, if you want higher end, I would say look at Nikon L840 Coolpix as a starter, its about £130 pounds and will do all your needed functions.

    Just read what you have gone for, and personally think you will find that a bit redundant in a few months time when you realize a bridge or bridge compact would've been cheaper. But hey for a beginner, good choice
    Not at all - her choice is much more capable than pretty much any bridge camera - they are not DSLRs, by the way. Bridge cameras essentially have the same small sensors that compact cameras use, and thus a very bad low-light performance. They have worse image quality than DSLRs/DSLMs and are not at all suited for stage photography.

    I started with a very well reviewed bridge camera and after about a year upgraded to an entry-level DSLR. The difference in image quality was immense.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sir Fox)
    Oh, is it? Because I bet the TO won't care considering she wants to do STAGE PHOTOGRAPHY.



    Now we're talking.



    I don't. Not for low light, at least. For fair weather outdoor pursuits, maybe.



    I doubt it would leave as much as a scratch on my K3, but whatever :rolleyes:
    :congrats:

    This made me laugh XD
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sir Fox)
    Not at all - her choice is much more capable than pretty much any bridge camera - they are not DSLRs, by the way. Bridge cameras essentially have the same small sensors that compact cameras use, and thus a very bad low-light performance. They have worse image quality than DSLRs/DSLMs and are not at all suited for stage photography.

    I started with a very well reviewed bridge camera and after about a year upgraded to an entry-level DSLR. The difference in image quality was immense.
    Recieved my D3200 today

    Very different to my sony alpha a200.. For starters it seems tiny and very light

    Also the image quality is a lot better...very pleased with it


    May not be ideal for stage photography.., but that is only a small part of what ill be using it for, I'll just have to play around with adjustments to get best results

    Overall, it seems to be awesome so far
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nbrooks2014)
    I can't help but feel that you have wasted your money. I bought a D3100 as my first DSLR about 2 years ago now and within 8 months I got a D90 and 11 months after that I got a D700. I wished I had cut the crap and got a larger body in the first place that can drive all lenses, even if it was older. I addition you will find that the 55-300 won't cut it for stage photography and you will want a lens with a wider aperture so that you can use faster shutter speeds. With the camera that you have bought you will be spending a minium of £700 for a f/2.8 telephoto lens, that can auto focus with your D3200; whereas if you had bought the D300 or D90 (my recommendations) you would be able to by the nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D lens and it still be able to auto focus, which would cost you between £250 and £350 on eBay. The D300 and D90 would have saved you a lot of money in the long run!
    Maybe price wise it isnt the best bargain, but i got it today and am really pleased with the image quality. Its extremely light too, which is great. Plus the video is something i will be experimenting with a lot

    And in terms of stage photography.. Its only something im doing occasionally this year for uni.., im also going to be photographing things like demonstrations, landmarks...


    Thanks for the advice, i will bear it in mind, and i could always resell second hand

    But i just feel like the camera is really right for me, lightweight, great image quality, video, nikon... I dont feel too dissapointed
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.