Clearance price. More than 50% off their usual price.
Decent entry level DSLR. And the extra lens is a bonus (even though many won't use it all).
Call store for stock before you go.
Cheapest on static ice is $569.35.
Other online stores with grey imports have body only for about $300.
As per the price tag, the deal may end on 27 Jan.
Not sure if Australia wide or only WA.
Is there more than 1 Big W in WA?
there is probably like 15 stores in WA
Pretty sure there is only 1 Big W in WA
This was at Livingston. I picked the last one there.
Good Price!
You can also get the D3200 single lens kit for $346 (after cashback). Don't know how much of an upgrade that is :P
Managed to get the 600D single lens kit for $500 (400 after cash back) two days ago with a bit of haggling at JB HIFI.
The value would certainly be more than $46 extra.
3200 is a fantastic camera, the 3100….has a little trouble with low light. Both deals are great, but the 3200 is better value for that price imo.
It seemed like a pretty good deal, found it at Harvey Norman.
The missus wanted the 600D cause' of the flip-screen so it was worth the extra $50 for the Canon to us ^_^
The 600D is definitely the better camera of the 2. You have HD digital zoom video without any quality loss at 3x and with some at 10x. Your low light shots will turn out better.
I now own both Canon and Nikon gear. I actually prefer the Nikons on the higher end crop bodies but I definitely would not take a D3100 over a 600D, even with the zoom lens thrown in.
It's not $46 extra. You lose the 55-200mm zoom.
Oh of course you do!
Still…it's not particularly impressive glass, trust me. Always avoid superzooms as a rule of thumb. Even decent telephotos rarely leave the bag. I'm a professional and I usually stick with my ~$300 35mm F1.8 over my ~$2,000 24-70 F2.8 just for the sake of ease and manoeuvrability.
As a recommendation to everyone considering this deal, a 35mm F1.8 DX is a cracking little lens and not insanely expensive considering the quality.
Andy, what do you use at weddings?
I a pro also, I just went to a wedding where a young new photographer only had one body and one lens, 5D and 35mm set at 2.8 I think. I cannot fathom how you fill the frame with a 35mm lens, and if you PP then what the DOF would be like on say three people, one of whom is always not in a line with the other two.
"Ease and manoeuvrability", not sure what you mean except for weight.
I avoid weddings like the plague! haha - I do events photography.
it's fine at 2.8 mostly because 35mm is a fairly wide FOV and you need to get further back to frame it properly, so DOF is rarely an issue. There's a nice app called DOF Calculator that is simple and will let you know the sharp/soft focus and the out of focus ranges of a particular scene: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.aimenrg.do…
As for filling the frame, it requires a bit of using it creatively and the old addage "Zoom with your feet" I'm a better photographer for using primes, that's for sure. Gets you in nice and close with the action, it's a "connected" way of shooting to me.
And yeah I was talking about weight/storage space.
Thanks for reply. Zoom with your feet stopped for me in 1984 when I bought a 28-105 for my XD5. I am still pretty sure I would prefer a 28-105 over a 28-70 over a 35mm for a wedding. Also, you cannot get candid shots with a 35mm either, they see you coming and start combing their hair and preparing smiles. Good luck anyway.
Would actually make sense to get one of each starting out. For the original price of the D3100 you get a 2 body camera system (1 for the short lens and 1 for the long) and a spare lens. You could do worse, since all in 1 18-200 lenses tend to compromise big time on image quality.
Also, you cannot get candid shots with a 35mm either
That's wrong, it's just an issue of skill. If you're there snapping for half an hour, people easily forget what you're up to.
Example candids shot with the 35mm:
http://i.imgur.com/pxXXxDP.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/RharDM6.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/rAFIGYr.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/1wHJ3yN.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/TUCsfhK.jpg
Aaaand my personal favourite:
http://i.imgur.com/8vkYiGA.jpg
"Zoom with your feet" - this really depends on what you're shooting. Zooming in with your feet and a 35mm prime you can get in close to your subject, but you still have a large angle of view, compared to say stepping back with a telephoto. While you can keep the subject the same size in the frame with either lens, the wider lens will bring in more of the background because the angle of view is larger. This might be ideal in say street photography, or environmental portraits, but if your wanting to minimise background distractions in say an outdoor portrait then its not really ideal.
@neos: I still think prime lenses encourage people to shoot properly. How often do you see non-photographer tourists using point and shoots leave them at the widest setting and go up super close to get a portrait?
With prime lenses, you understand what the different lenses allow you to achieve in terms of angle of view, perhaps the most important lesson in photography.
Too much of photography is based around exposure (i.e. aperture, shutter speed, ISO), but so many neglect the basics of focal length, compression effect, angle of view…etc. which are technically more important to making great shots.
Are those children in your shots? No. Are they taken in a garden? No. Candids of children in the garden were what we were talking about. Here you are using a 35mm for low light, which is a suitable use for it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candid_photography
"A candid photograph is a photograph captured through motion mostly, without creating a posed appearance. This is achieved by avoiding prior preparation of the subject and by either surprising the subject or by not distracting the subject during the process of taking photos."
Are you honestly going to tell me that it's not easier to get a candid from further away.
Also none of the kits you recommended mentioned include the 35mm. If the guy was taking photos of his kids in a dimly lit room the 35mm might be a better lens depending on the room.
I am not about to show you photos of my kids to prove the point that I can take a photo. I've been doing it a lot longer than you. In fact we don't post pictures of them on the net often if at all. You want a pat on the back? Fine. Your photos are good. I don't love your post processing - you're a bit heavy handed with the B&W and a couple have strong flash bounce - but overall they're good. That does not mean I'm wrong.
I was having a separate conversation…which didn't involve you. Why have you started this vendetta against me? The above comment is on no way related to the previous conversation we had.
We started talking lenses, abacus makes a comment that candid shot can't be taken with a 35mm - I gave some examples where I actually did get candid shots with a 35. End of conversation, right?
I never inferred you couldn't take a decent photo at all.
If I was trolling, flaming or wanted to start a vendetta, I'd never admit your photos are good.
on second thoughts, can't be bothered getting involved.
comment deleted.
Settle down fellas. I've been shooting professionally for 35 years. You mentioned "With prime lenses, you understand what the different lenses allow you to achieve in terms of angle of view, perhaps the most important lesson in photography."
I use a 28-105 and know exactly what mm length I need before I take the shot, and what it will look like etc, so you don't need primes to teach you that. If you want to take candid photos of people who are moving, you cannot tell me you can fill the frame properly, and shoot one frame every few seconds with a prime.
I picked up my old 50mm lens camera recently and felt handicapped trying to frame a few different photos.
At the end of the day, if it works for you and you are really taking good photos, then good luck.
Don't understand why you have to be so pompous and arrogant.
There's no right and wrong and it depends on more than how far away you are. You get a different view when you're in close and when you're far away.
You should know. When you're far away, you isolate the subject from their surroundings, but when you are in closer, you drink in more of the background and you get a perspective that includes much more of the surroundings.
There's no one position that's correct. Some people like to back up and take pictures whereas some like to move in closer and use wider angles. It's just a matter of preference and taste.
Nobody is doubting your ability to take a photo. You can take a great photo - that's good for you. But there's no need to be pompous and arrogant.
Pompous and arrogant?
I'm the one who got told flash ruins photos. Tell that to Joe McNally or David Hobby.
I got told a medium to long zoom lens was not something you'd need starting out if you want to shoot chilren in the garen.
Go back and take a look at the conversation before jumping in and calling people pompous and arrogant.
I agree there are different ways to do things. But a twin lens kit is a much nicer start to a lot of family photography compared to a single 18-55!!!
@syousef: Not really, the truth is it was a conversation between Andy-Laa, Abacus and Neos and you decided to chime in and attack him.
I'm the one who got told flash ruins photos. Tell that to Joe McNally or David Hobby.
There are a variety of different opinions regarding flash. If you like flash, use it. If you don't, then don't use it. There's no need to get into a spat about whether flash is good or not, it's neither, it's just about what you want to do and what you think looks best.
I got told a medium to long zoom lens was not something you'd need starting out if you want to shoot chilren in the garen.
You don't need a medium to long zoom. That's absolutely correct, what you need is what you want to use. If someone wants to use an 18-55mm VR for photos of their kids, that's fine, you still get around an 85mm frame from the long end, which is plenty long enough.
It's one thing to say that it's desirable, or that you'd like it. But it's completely on another level to jump in and say that someone else needs it.
Not really, the truth is it was a conversation between Andy-Laa, Abacus and Neos and you decided to chime in and attack him.
The very first comment that could be described as an attack was Andy's response to your comment that you lose the 55-200 where he describes it as a superzoom (incorrect), unimpressive glass (inocrrect again - it's superb at that price point) and tells us that he is a professional and his zoom never leaves the bag. THAT is arrogant. What he's actually saying is because he doesn't know how to get the best out of that glass or it doesn't match the style he's use to shooting that it's worthless.
There are a variety of different opinions regarding flash. If you like flash, use it. If you don't, then don't use it.
That's fine. But again. Don't call me arrogant for defending the use of flash. Even the little on camera speedlite can be used to incredibly good effect. I do it all the time.
You don't need a medium to long zoom. That's absolutely correct, what you need is what you want to use. If someone wants to use an 18-55mm VR for photos of their kids, that's fine, you still get around an 85mm frame from the long end, which is plenty long enough.
Any 18-55 is not an 85mm lens regardless of the crop factor. Never. It's not just about magnification. You're talking complete nonsense there.
It's also about angle of view - the ratio of the size of an object in the foreground to the ratio of an object further back. When we're talking facial features that's the nose being less large. Now at 55mm vs 85mm it's not a huge difference, but it's there. Walk up to someone and shoot them at 18mm however and shoot them up close - you get a face that's much less flattering and more cartoon like.
The other thing is depth of field. More depth of field gives you more zoom. You can buy expensive f/2.8 "professional" glass to get a nice blurry background when shooting. Or you can use a long zoom lens and put the subject just beyond minimum focus distance and the background as far away as possible for the same effect with a $200 lens shot at f/8 that will give you wonderful results. You need more light, but that 55-200 is absolute gold at 200mm if you know how to use it.
On the other hand the 18-55 shot at f/8 with plenty of light will give you a lot more of the background.
It's one thing to say that it's desirable, or that you'd like it. But it's completely on another level to jump in and say that someone else needs it.
It's not just a little bit desirable. It's a whole other level of learning and skill you can develop and it's not an area you want to close off to a beginner. Handling a lens at a longer zoom with a shallower depth of field allows a photographer to learn without becoming sloppy about focusing. In any case if you can get that extra lens for taking pictures of your kids you can stand back and not be in their face when they're playing. Just letting them play without interfering is priceless regardless of the photographic value.
If you want to buy an interchangable lens camera and leave one lens on it all the time, sure that's your prerogative - people can do whatever they like with their camera. They can stick it in their fish tank as a decoration or use it as a paperweight too. They'd be missing the point and wasting that camera though.
If you're so keen on people not forcing their views on others, why do you give Andy a free pass? And why are you telling me that a 55-200 is just a nice to have when I don't think you have a full grasp of why you'd want a longer zoom lens when starting out?
The very first comment that could be described as an attack was Andy's response to your comment that you lose the 55-200 where he describes it as a superzoom (incorrect), unimpressive glass (inocrrect again - it's superb at that price point) and tells us that he is a professional and his zoom never leaves the bag. THAT is arrogant. What he's actually saying is because he doesn't know how to get the best out of that glass or it doesn't match the style he's use to shooting that it's worthless.
The difference is, he's offering an opinion. He's saying that HE doesn't use it, which is fine. I don't use a lot of different types of lenses too. It's personal preference. You decided to come along and attack him, rather than address his comment about the lens, you attack him in quite an arrogant tone. This is what you said:
Are those children in your shots? No. Are they taken in a garden? No. Candids of children in the garden were what we were talking about.
Any 18-55 is not an 85mm lens regardless of the crop factor. Never. It's not just about magnification. You're talking complete nonsense there.
No, I think you misunderstand me. You seem knowledgeable about photography. That's good, I am too. Sorry if I'm making any assumptions, but we both come from mathematical and scientific backgrounds and we both love the technical side of photography. But here's where I disagree with you. It's not always about the image.
Sure, you definitely don't get an 85mm FOV when you use a 55mm lens on a DX body, but what you do get, however, is a similar working distance, similar magnification and a similar experience to using an 85mm lens. There's a reason why the 85mm focal length is nice. I'd much prefer to use a 135mm lens for portraiture, but at 135mm, you're usually backed up too far, you're a little too far away and you lose the human touch that comes with using 85mm. That's what I was referring to when I said that 55mm on DX is similar to 85mm, it's a very similar feel.
The other thing is depth of field. More depth of field gives you more zoom. You can buy expensive f/2.8 "professional" glass to get a nice blurry background when shooting. Or you can use a long zoom lens and put the subject just beyond minimum focus distance and the background as far away as possible for the same effect with a $200 lens shot at f/8 that will give you wonderful results. You need more light, but that 55-200 is absolute gold at 200mm if you know how to use it.
f/2.8 lenses aren't really that fast, if you're wanting to blow out backgrounds, you're really having to look at f/1.4 primes or even f/1.2 primes, such as the Canon 85mm f/1.2. That said, of course, you have to pay attention to the background and personally, I've found that ever since paying attention to the background, I've released myself from the crutch of bokeh, in that I find myself closing down my aperture when the background is nice and pretty.
It's not just a little bit desirable. It's a whole other level of learning and skill you can develop and it's not an area you want to close off to a beginner. Handling a lens at a longer zoom with a shallower depth of field allows a photographer to learn without becoming sloppy about focusing. In any case if you can get that extra lens for taking pictures of your kids you can stand back and not be in their face when they're playing. Just letting them play without interfering is priceless regardless of the photographic value.
The thing is, we're getting back to the technical side of photography again. I used to be a lot like you, I'll admit.
If you're so keen on people not forcing their views on others, why do you give Andy a free pass? And why are you telling me that a 55-200 is just a nice to have when I don't think you have a full grasp of why you'd want a longer zoom lens when starting out?
Because there's a difference between saying "this is what I do" and saying "this is what you should do". Andy is saying "this is what I do". That's fine, that's what he does. You, on the other hand are saying "this is what you should do".
I completely understand the benefit of a longer zoom. But unlike you, I don't assume that everyone needs one. Any lens is good to start off with, learn what you need, buy it when you need it. It's simple really.
You decided to come along and attack him
He equally blasted me earlier in the discussion and at least I didn't get personal. His attack came first with the remark:
"You're unbearably arrogant to talk to and unwilling to accept fault, however, I'm sure you'll have a nice time in your own little world.
Bye-bye now."
His comment is below. Check the time stamp.
But here's where I disagree with you. It's not always about the image.
Did you even read the part where I said stepping back and letting your kids play was priceless regardless of the photography?
Your point about working distance is valid but in reality you can compensate for that quite easily at 55mm vs 135mm. You don't HAVE to lose the human touch just because you're not in someone's face. I can build a rapport at 1m or at 3m meters. It's not hard. But what I can't do is alter the angle of view with my charm.
The thing is, we're getting back to the technical side of photography again. I used to be a lot like you, I'll admit.
You're making insulting assumptions about my lack of ability to get past the technical. The technicalities have to be in the bag. They need to be second nature. It doesn't matter how good your people skills, rapport or anything else are if you've set your shutter too slow and have a lousy picture, or if you're too far away for the lens you're using to capture the subject in a way that tells the story you want to tell.
Because there's a difference between saying "this is what I do" and saying "this is what you should do". Andy is saying "this is what I do". That's fine, that's what he does. You, on the other hand are saying "this is what you should do".
Actually what Andy did was tell me that I'm "unbearably arrogant to talk to and unwilling to accept fault" when the fault was imagined by him. But hey don't let reality get in the way of telling someone how arrogant they are. Pot. Kettle. And all that.
One other thing. I wouldn't shoot at f/1.4 for portraiture. Not unless it's an older person who's face you want to intentionally blur. It's not that you can't get good photos or it hasn't been done. It's just a lot harder and anyone who actually cares about sharpness is going to find fault with it. If you think portraits should be shot wide open, take a good look at the iconic photos of Yousuf Karsh.
I'm not going to bother replying anymore to the debate between you and Andy, he's not me and it's really not worth my time anymore.
I've never doubted your ability, but to be honest, technical ability is overrated because machines can do all that for us. There will be a day where we can just line up a group shot, the camera works out the appropriate depth of field, works out the appropriate shutter speed from the movement and automatically calculates our aperture, shutter speed and ISO for us. Think of it as program mode that is actually intelligent and adaptive. It's easy, that's why it's really Photography 101.
What's not easy is everything else - the people skills, the rapport, the patience, the perseverence, the willingness to get up at 4am in the morning to catch the sunrise…etc. It doesn't matter how good your technical ability is, you can take a sharp photo using expensive equipment of crap and boring subjects and nobody will care.
It is very hard to shoot portraiture at f/1.4, there's no doubt about that, but if you nail the focus, well you get an amazing image don't you? I don't think portraits should or shouldn't be shot wide open. I don't understand this word "should". Since when was there a "should" in art. You just shoot however you like, your results are what matters, if you get a good image, no clown will care about what aperture or equipment you used.
What's not easy is everything else - the people skills, the rapport, the patience, the perseverence, the willingness to get up at 4am in the morning to catch the sunrise…etc. It doesn't matter how good your technical ability is, you can take a sharp photo using expensive equipment of crap and boring subjects and nobody will care.
A few things:
- Unless you're selling your photos (and sometimes even then) most of the time no one will care but you. Photography is a comodity. That's okay. As long as you care.
You'd be surprised what a machine can automate. Certainly not the human spirit but it wouldn't surprise me one bit if before i die a robot can be programmed to go out and shoot the sunset for you. But where's the sense of achievement in that?
It does matter how good your technical ability is. Part of that ability is to find an interesting photo. But even if you exclude composition and situation, EVERYTHING matters. Your camera matters. Your lens matters. Your ability matters. Your focus matters. Whatever is the weakest link will ruin a photo.
It is very hard to shoot portraiture at f/1.4, there's no doubt about that, but if you nail the focus, well you get an amazing image don't you?
No. I have never EVER come across a lens below with max aperture f/3.5 that's sharp wide open for enough of a face to be useful to me. That said I don't own pro glass. But I have seen images from some of the most widely loved lenses like the Nikon 70-200 2.8 at 100% and felt let down, even when the rest of the image is great - composition, lighting etc. I've seen airshot images from the Nikon 100-400VR at f/8 to f/11 before knowing what lens was used and been blown away wondering why my results were lacking and what was being done differently. The glass matters. But stopping down even good glass can often have real impact on making a better image.
I'll refer you to Karsh again. Every part of the face is in perfect focus. He shot incredible pictures of celebrities and leaders in a variety of fields. The depth of field is superb. The images jump out at you. But that is my preference. None of this nailing the eye and turning the rest of the face into soft focus mush, which I believe is the most overused technique in photography for isolating the subject. I want the detail. I can always soften a photo. I can't retrieve that sharpness. Often I want the background in focus as well. There are all manner of technique to draw the eye to your subject without turning everything else into bokeh. Unless ALL you want is the subject with no context. I can do that too, and I do do it on occasion but usually with a long lens at 250-300mm giving me a superbly in focus face and while the background isn't as dreamy and creamlike as a wide open 200 2.8 it's still pretty good. More often than not though it's what you'd call an environmental portrait that I'm after. I don't want to blur out the garden or the pool or the park or the playground when the kids are playing in it.
In any case as long as you're enjoying what you're doing that's what really matters.
You'd be surprised what a machine can automate. Certainly not the human spirit but it wouldn't surprise me one bit if before i die a robot can be programmed to go out and shoot the sunset for you. But where's the sense of achievement in that?
I highly doubt it, you can probably program a robot to take a picture of the sunset, but the creative process will be gone. Humans are superior to machines when it comes to creative thinking, we can see a great shot probably much better than a machine can because we can't write algorithms for finding a great shot.
If you ever doubt, at all, that you need to understand exposure to do great photography, chuck your camera in P mode and walk around, you'll get great photos. It'll probably even select the same settings you would have selected. That's the truth, for 90% of shots, unless you're doing something out of the ordinary, e.g. sports or a long exposure, your camera can work it out for you.
It does matter how good your technical ability is. Part of that ability is to find an interesting photo. But even if you exclude composition and situation, EVERYTHING matters. Your camera matters. Your lens matters. Your ability matters. Your focus matters. Whatever is the weakest link will ruin a photo.
It's not the 1950s, most cameras today are able to resolve almost exactly the same details. Most lenses are more than good enough unless you're doing mural sized wall prints.
No. I have never EVER come across a lens below with max aperture f/3.5 that's sharp wide open for enough of a face to be useful to me. That said I don't own pro glass.
Nikon 85mm f/1.4G. Try it!
I'll refer you to Karsh again. Every part of the face is in perfect focus. He shot incredible pictures of celebrities and leaders in a variety of fields. The depth of field is superb. The images jump out at you. But that is my preference. None of this nailing the eye and turning the rest of the face into soft focus mush, which I believe is the most overused technique in photography for isolating the subject. I want the detail. I can always soften a photo. I can't retrieve that sharpness. Often I want the background in focus as well. There are all manner of technique to draw the eye to your subject without turning everything else into bokeh.
And I completely agree with you, I said that in one of my previous posts, it's good to release oneself from the crutch that is bokeh. Relying on bokeh only gets you so far.
In any case as long as you're enjoying what you're doing that's what really matters.
Glad that through our numerous disagreements, we can end up on an agreement here. I agree with this, love what you do, love the photos you make.
I highly doubt it, you can probably program a robot to take a picture of the sunset, but the creative process will be gone. Humans are superior to machines when it comes to creative thinking, we can see a great shot probably much better than a machine can because we can't write algorithms for finding a great shot.
You mean algorithms like the rule of thirds? Or the golden ratio? I program computers for a living. I understand quite well that they're not capable of original thought…but don't kid yourself a lot of photography is based on forumulae - even the creative stuff. Analysing a scene to look for different possibilities can certainly be automated.
If you ever doubt, at all, that you need to understand exposure to do great photography, chuck your camera in P mode and walk around, you'll get great photos.
Sure you can get good shots - nothing wrong with program mode in certain circumstances - but you'll miss as much as you get - the camera as it is now is a dumb box that can't tell you whether your subject requires more depth of field. It's never going to intentionally under expose for a silhouette or drama, or overexpose for high key. There's no reason these things can't change and we can't build smarter cameras of course but right now the intelligence has to come from the photographer and a photographer that doesn't understand the possibilities is going to make rather dull and boring shots.
That's the truth, for 90% of shots, unless you're doing something out of the ordinary, e.g. sports or a long exposure, your camera can work it out for you.
You contradict yourself here. The camera can never work out what you're trying to shoot. If your shots are no different to what you would get in P or auto mode you have a long way to go with your photography. Exposure is a creative choice. What you focus on is a creative choice. Your camera doesn't even know how to balance flash and ambient properly (they've gotten better in recent years with auto ISO turned on, but if you turn it off or limit it and actually meter your background you'll get an image with less noise).
Why do you think in auto mode that it's possible to override what the camera decides with exposure compensation?
Your key error here is your distinction between technical aspects of photography and the artistic. Knowing the technicalities allows you artistic freedom - it lets you decide how to make your photo different or more interesting. The technical knowledge is a tool.
It's not the 1950s, most cameras today are able to resolve almost exactly the same details. Most lenses are more than good enough unless you're doing mural sized wall prints.
I'm sorry but that's absolute nonsense. No way would working professional photographers pay thousands for a camera body if they could do the same thing with a cheaper one. The jump from the D70 to the D90 for me was huge in terms of the detail that I could capture. The jump to the D7100 also breath taking. The autofocus on my D7100 kicks the pants off the autofocus on my D90 and the Canon rebels. It means I get a much higher percentage of keepers shooting birds at close range with a zoom lens. A full frame camera in low light is going to capture much more detail with less noise - ask anyone shooting natural light weddings in a dark church. I can't justify the expense or weight but I don't kid myself that a rebel's just as good as a 5DMarkIII or a D810 for those situations.
And I completely agree with you, I said that in one of my previous posts, it's good to release oneself from the crutch that is bokeh. Relying on bokeh only gets you so far.
It's nice to find some commonality.
Glad that through our numerous disagreements, we can end up on an agreement here. I agree with this, love what you do, love the photos you make.
It's much more fun having a disagreement with someone when you stick to what you disagree about rather than make value judgements on the person.
Would this be suitable for someone who doesn't know much about cameras but wants a good camera to take photos of the kids?
Good enough for entry level.
Is it worth spending the extra $46 to get this: http://www.harveynorman.com.au/nikon-24-2mp-d3200-digital-sl…
Is the D3200 body the same as this: http://www.harveynorman.com.au/nikon-d3200-digital-slr-camer…
If so, who would buy just the body for $348 instead of the D3200 kit for $346?
Get the D3200 kit for its higher resolution sensor.
Definitely worth it! Also, if you can stretch into the D5300, go for it as it is a much better camera. From then on, you'd want to be a bit of an enthusiast.
@educalifa: but that's double the price!! I didn't think I'd be spending this much money so early on a Saturday! :-)
Oh my bad! hahaha I didn't check the price… in that case, go with the D3200! I have one too and it's a good little camera but I find myself sometimes wishing I'd gotten the D5200 instead.
Having said that, the D5200/5300 is not twice as good so there's really no justifying the extra dough
[@onetwothree] Wait till the afternoon then.
It really comes down to whether you'll be regretting not getting the D3200 for years to come.
If you're that type of person, get the D3200.
If you just want to take good pictures, you'll be fine with either.
Don't buy into the high megapixel count debate - it's just a marketing ploy unless you're making mural sized prints for exhibitions, which you aren't with a camera like this anyway.
The professional news and sports camera, the D4s, has 16MP and all the pros are happy shooting weddings and photographs for print with that, so the D3100 is fine for happy snaps. Before the D4, we were all shooting on the D3s and the D700 which had 12MP. Resolution really doesn't matter for 99% of people, unless you're doing exhibitions.
On top of all that, it's not all about the sensor, I doubt the kit lens included would be able to resolve that much more detail, either way.
Go the 3200 and you won't go far wrong with it. Single lens kit is all you need. Enjoy, brother!
That's terrible advice. Clearly what you shoot doesn't require a long lens but how do you know what his interests are? For birding and zoo photography you'd be missing out on a lot without a long lens. Same with shooting kids sports (in bright light)
18-55 is a fantastic range for a zoom. You invest in good lenses as the need arises. Sounds like you may have a case of gear-itis - I remember those days lol.
How do I know he's not taking photos of birds and sports? I read his very short and succinct post.
Gear-itis my foot. 55 isn't even the best length for a simple portrait - it doesn't compress the background and give you the lovely bokeh you can't get out of a longer lens.
Most people don't even know what zoom range they need until they actually start taking photos. Buying a DSLR and not having a lens that goes longer than 55 is ridiculous. The whole point of an interchangeable lens camera is to use the right lens for the job.
Now you're the one assuming what he needs. I did without a telephoto for about a year.
Absolutely agree it can take lovely portraits…that's not what he's doing though is it? He's not looking to hone his photography; he's looking to take snapshots of his kids playing in the garden etc.
Yeah because what he needs are snapshots of the kids playing in the garden while he gets in their face. If you want snapshots of the kids in the garden you want to be able to step back and take one without getting in the way of them playing. So no I'm not assuming what he needs. I'm assuming he doesn't want to annoy his kids. I'm assuming he wants a flattering focal length. I'm assuming he wants to take good pictures. Otherwise the camera on his phone will do and he can save his money.
There are still zealots who say you should stick a 35mm or 50mm prime and "zoom with your feet" but they're allowing their nostalgia to get in the way and missing the point of an interchangeable lens camera.
I have no nostalgia whatsoever; I'm 22 years old. I never advised this poster to only use primes, the lens in question being an 18-55mm, I simply said a single lens kit is sufficient for what he said he wanted. And it is, shockingly enough.
I mean how big is your f***ing garden!? I imagine vast given your disregard for cost-effective purchases of lenses…
You're unbearably arrogant to talk to and unwilling to accept fault, however, I'm sure you'll have a nice time in your own little world.
Bye-bye now.
Excuse me? Did you fail basic comprehension? You failed to actually counter any point I made and instead got personal.
I said there are still a lot of nostalgic zealots. I did not accuse you of being one. If anything you're a kit lens zealot. That shoe fits nicely.
With all of your 22 years of experience you're unwilling to accept that a zoom lens would be useful to this photographer in getting started when shooting children in the back yard, and yet you accuse ME of being "unwilling to accept fault" and being "unbearably arrogant"? Well if we're getting personal, take a good look in the mirror, pal.
Ah to be young again and think I know it all!
Bad advice for a beginner. When digital photography started 20 years ago, $10k Nikon/Kodak cameras were about 2Mb. 99.9% off people do not need anything above 2Mb and it's a big pain in terms of burst rate and storage.
If you want to display a photo on your 15 inch laptop or a high def tv, you can compress the photo to 1920 X 1080 pixels at the lowest compression rate, and you end up with a photo of about 200kb, and this gives you exactly the save quality as a 20Mb photo. Ie you cannot tell the difference between the two.
"Would this be suitable for someone who doesn't know much about cameras but wants a good camera to take photos of the kids?"
No - most definitely not.
A SLR is an advanced camera with more settings and eccentricities than you would ever want or use.
A SLR is more for a person who appreciates the art of photography and wants to learn how to take photos of different subjects in different states or rest or motion, make adjustments to alter the way the picture appears and, an general, stuff around with their camera a hell of a lot.
All you need is a simple point-and-shoot compact camera.
All you need is a simple point-and-shoot compact camera.
I disagree. Even on auto mode the D3100 would take much better photos than a "simple point and shoot camera". A compact P&S will have an image sensor that can be as small as 1/2.3-inch. All DSLR's will have at least an APS-C sized sensor. Look at the size difference even someone on auto will reap the benefits of a larger sensor without knowing…dynamic range, less noise, better low light/high ISO performance, etc.
Sure if you want to take full advantage of your DSLR you need to get off auto.
But if your going to buy a P&S camera, unless its a large sensor compact…you might as well stick with your phone.
Also a big plus for people starting out with a D3100 is it has guide mode - good way to learn the effects of shutter speed and aperture based on the type of photos you want to take.
A SLR is an advanced camera with more settings and eccentricities than you would ever want or use.
A SLR is more for a person who appreciates the art of photography
This is the pretentious sort of comments I sometimes hear from other photographers to scare people off. If I took this advise when starting out I wouldn't have got into photography. I started out with a D3200 and its been a year and a half now and I feel I've come a long way with my photography.
What this dude said
There are many compact cameras capable of taking fantastic photos while staying compact and easier to use.
The SLR is bulky and awkward to use for most people as a simple camera
I doubt the poster is after a zoom lens making the deal beyond their needs.
If they wanted to "Get into photography" as you did then sure, it is a good start, but for "photographing the kids" I will go on a limb and state that a decent compact is what they require.
This not an attempt to "scare" anyone out of photography, but I know so many people with $1200 plus SLR's sitting at home that never see the light of day - bought as a vacation tool or as a bargain, but they just never get used - if they took the time to learn how to then they would certainly appreciate them, but this isn't everyones wish - some people want to simply point and shoot with a minimum of fuss and know they can get a decent picture from their equipment.
A powershot S120, a Lumix TZ60 or a Sony RX100 would probably suit the bill just fine.
This will take better pictures and if you have kids getting pictures of them one the hop will be much easier.
Your point and shoot will indeed point and shoot but it will be slower to gain focus and less able to snap a good shot of something on the move. For kids an slr with the ability to quickly snap off a bunch of shots one after another is very handy. Shutter speed the crapload of glass in the slr lenses (comparatively) is a big deal.
Those are great compacts, but for $300 I would go this over any of those even if its just to photograph the kids. The telephoto zoom is actually a good focal range for taking casual/outdoor portraits of the kids. Its no 70-200 f2.8 but should do an adequate job for casual use at 1/20th the price.
And yes while I agree on people dropping cash for camera gear and never using it, there's no risk here if you can pick one up for $300.
some people want to simply point and shoot with a minimum of fuss and know they can get a decent picture from their equipment.
These entry level DSLR's are designed to be used that way if you wish, just like a compact. Otherwise they would have left out scene modes, intelligent auto, auto area AF, etc (like they do on the D800/810). But at least there's room to grow if that's what you decide to do.
This will take better pictures
…
This
…
This
…
This
Well then, I suppose I'd take the best pictures in the world with a Nikon D4s…
More expensive though:
I have the RX100 and an older s95. Both are great point and shoots.
But they cant do what a basic slr can do.
I also have a high end nikon slr with great lenses.
@razorack999: A Nikon 5100 here with average zoom lenses but a decent prime. Once you get used to it's limitations and know what to expect the prime is great value for the money
Absolutely, but a worse camera allows you to grow as a photographer, given your restrictions and working around them.
Goes both ways. I'm glad I started on a real entry-level camera, working my way up.
@Andy-Laa: I could argue the opposite is true, that the options of a more expensive camera give you the opportunity to grow.
Either could be the case depending on the user and in both cases its opinion only anyway.
It's generally accepted as the norm that starting off basic is the best way to grow, given having to find, as an example, other ways to get properly exposed photos in low light situations other than bumping your ISO to 25,000.
Also allows you to master a few things at a time and then grow, rather than have all features right there to use instantly and not knowing where to start.
Having said all that, you're quite right, it largely comes down to preference.
singlemalt - the worst thing you can give someone is bad advice.
You can put a SLR on P, select spot focusing, focus on the main person in the photo, recompose and all your shots will be perfect.
You can't do that with a point and shoot, which give you a lot of out-of-focus photos
You can also attach an external flash to a SLR and point it at the ceiling, do the spot focussing thing, and you get perfect photos inside, which you can't do with a point and shoot.
Considering a good point and shoot 5 years ago cost the same as a basic SLR today, SLRs are fantastic value. The only down-side the size and weight.
You probably get equally good photos from a mobile phone as a point and shoot anyway.
Yes, in full auto mode you don't need to know any more about photography to take decent pics than you do a point and shoot. It will be much faster to focus on kids in action/playing than a point and shoot. The ability to look through a viewfinder rather than and lcd screen will be helpful for outside photos, at the park etc.
Of course, one you have the camera, there are a million resources online to help you learn more if you choose to.
Didn't realise I'd stir up so much emotion with a couple questions about a camera :-; thanks for everyone's input
The problem with photography is that the insecure will always defend their need to purchase expensive gear which, by the way, has very little to do with the actual final image.
It's a very typical guy thing, just like how the one who buys a Maserati will be forever defending his ability to drive to the shops faster than you can in an old beat up Commodore.
Such a poor troll attempt.
If you don't mind the size and weight you will be amazed at the photos. The 18-55 lens is not that great (compared to $800 lenses) and quite short and you will want a longer lens after a while. Recommend 28-105 which on cropped cameras works out about 35-155mm.
so tempting
How much do you reckon you could sell the additional lens for to sweeten the deal?
The 55-200 lens sells new for about $240 and if you want to sell the 18-55, it is sold in shops for about $130-$140
You'd be lucky to get it sold it for $150
Thus making the camera only $150 (AKA, a damn good deal).
Happy to take the zoom lens for $50 off you.
This camera model is almost 5 years old
this is a dslr. not your tiny compact camera or the camera on your phone.
14 Megapixels is fine.
The sharpness of the lens (unless you are using $1000 ones) is going to limit the amount of detail the camera can resolve before the 14Mpix sensor has a negative effect.
Edit: This info is correct, deal with it!
I'm guessing you got neg'd purely for the sake of the other guy being neg'd. People who know very little about cameras will base their opinion off of how many megapixels it has.. This camera is fantastic to get someone going in the SLR world for an affordable price too.
For pity sake stop down to f/8 to f/11 and even the kit lenses do very well on a high megapixel camera! You've even got a nice built in flash to help you if you need more light for things that are close.
@syousef:
Going to F8 or F11 is no guarantee that the lens is going to be as sharp or sharper than the sensor and having to use the flash is a horrible trade off for a little extra sharpness.
@Namesareapain:
You have no idea what you're talking about.
The kit lenses on both Nikon and Canon have enough sharpness for 18-24 megapixels. Most lenses are at their worst wide open. By f/8 just about every Canon or Nikon kit lens I've used is sharp enough to be stunning. If you can't get a sharp image out of a kit lens it's your technique.
Flash makes a huge difference and if you use it well it's not horrible at all. Is it better with an off camera flash or a large bounce flash? Yep. But I've been making fantastic pictures with flash for the last few years.
I don't share a ton of my stuff but every one of these photos was taken with flash:
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/242274667/albums/20130323-…
@syousef: No, this is simply untrue. There is no reason a happy snapper needs a 24MP camera. News and sports pros have been using 12MP D3s for years and even the latest D4s is only 16MP. You don't need anything more unless you're doing mural sized wall prints.
For people wanna make large canvas prints sometime, D3200 is the way to go.
23 MP vs 14MP… D3100's sensor is just too old.
D3200 worths the extra money.
btw. This D3100 kit deal is good, only for people who buy this kit and sell the body and lenses separately. Otherwise, D3100 is not wise option for beginners.
At no stage did I say a "happy snapper" needs a 24MP camera.
However you will get better low light performance out of a newer sensor. A lot of people want to take pictures of their kids indoors in the evenings. That is where a newer sensor will make a difference.
Your comment smacks of "no one needs more than 640k". Technology moves on!
However you will get better low light performance out of a newer sensor. A lot of people want to take pictures of their kids indoors in the evenings. That is where a newer sensor will make a difference.
Difference in the sensor technology is marginal at best. Either way, buying more expensive camera bodies is really never better.
D3100 in this deal is $300 with the 18-55mm and 55-200mm. The D3200 is $346 with the 18-55mm. You can probably sell the 55-200mm for around $100, so the difference is $146. With that amount, I can purchase a 35mm f/1.8G DX.
What do you think will give better low light performance, the D3100 with the 35mm f/1.8G DX or the D3200 with the 18-55mm VR at f/5.6? Of course the D3100 with the 35mm f/1.8G DX.
If you're interested in low light, the second option makes much more sense for the same price. You're getting an effective 3.3 stops more light.
Your comment smacks of "no one needs more than 640k". Technology moves on!
Apparently Bill Gates never said that (Google it, that's what I heard).
Anyway, that's not quite true, technology moves on, but in terms of print resolution, technology has not yet moved on.
Have a look here: http://www.photokaboom.com/photography/learn/printing/1_calc…
For a standard 4x6" print, at 300DPI, you only need 2.16MP.
For a 12x18", you're looking at 19.4MP. Do you know how huge 12x18" is? We're talking about a size bigger than A3. How many people buying a D3100/D3200 are going to make prints bigger than A3?
Also, this is talking about prints, if you're talking about viewing on a computer screen, their pixel densities are even lower than 300DPI, so it's even more of a moot point.
When I had my D3200 with the kit lens, the number of times I was able to make a photo look compositionally better because I could crop in due to the high MP count was invaluable. Especially when I was doing long exposures, and it was too dark to see clearly in the viewfinder or lcd to frame the image the way I wanted so had to guess. Of course its best to get as much right SOOC, but having some extra flexibility can come in handy sometimes.
Which store was this?