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.
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Nikon/AF-S-DX-Nikkor-18-55mm-f…
Not the exact same lens, but close enough.
If we're just talking about image sharpness, should look into the PMPix Map under the Sharpness tab. That DXOMark Score Map take into account other factors like vignetting, distortion, CA etc/
Looks as though f5.6-f8 is the sharpest part of the lens, and if we're just talking centre image sharpness looks as though f5.6 - f11 its sharpest.
Also should worth pointing out, I don't think I have ever seen a lens/body combo on dxomark have "perceived megapixels" that matches the body's MP count. Just look at this, even with the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 its only scoring 10 perceived MP
http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Best-lenses-for-the-24-MPix-N…
Difference in the sensor technology is marginal at best. Either way, buying more expensive camera bodies is really never better.
Is that no professional photographer buys an expensive camera? Sorry. That statement is ridiculous. You buy a body that's going to be well suited to what you're going to be doing. If you don't need bells and whistles don't spend the money on them.
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.
I doubt you'll find a 35mm 1.8G for $146. The cheapest I'm seeing is $149 plus a significant shipping charge for grey market. It's more like $200.
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.
You do realise the 35mm is soft wide open right? Also do you know how shallow the DoF is at 1.8? If your subject turns sideways you're bound to have one eye in focus and not the other. Learn to bounce a flash and you can use either lens at an appropriate aperture and have very nice looking pics. You'll need to spend $300-$500 on that flash but you can use it with every lens.
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.
At least one of those stops is blur. If you don't care about blur and all you're doing is posting to facebook, save some money and stick to the camera on your phone. And the newer camera will give you 1 stop of light. If you care enough you'll buy both the better camera (which makes every single lens you own better in low light) and the prime.
Also note that you lose the flexibility of zooming with the prime. Please do not say zoom with your feet. I hear that all the time from people who should know better. If you don't understand the difference between optical zooming changing angle of view and subject distance you're probably not fit to be arguing photography. Zooming changes background compression and DoF.
Not to mention the hassle of changing lenses.
Apparently Bill Gates never said that (Google it, that's what I heard).
I googled it, and the same articles I found also suggested "An aside - did you know you can ask him anything you want at: [email protected]?". I've got a bridge to sell. Interested?
Anyway, that's not quite true, technology moves on, but in terms of print resolution, technology has not yet moved on.
If you don't understand the difference 24MP makes compared to 14MP don't even bother talking to me.
For a standard 4x6" print, at 300DPI, you only need 2.16MP.
Who the heck even prints 4x6s anymore? I don't. I'm typically viewing on a large monitor or big screen TV…which is 2-4MP….well until you zoom in or crop. Which people who care about image quality do.
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?
Have you ever heard of cropping??? Do you really think the only thing you can do with an image is print it at full resolution? That's like suggesting your car is only for driving to the shops.
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.
Really? You've never zoomed in or cropped a picture? You think this is something people who'l spend money on a DSLR and want to put the time into better images aren't interested in doing? I'm not talking about the people who buy their camera and leave it on auto. And neither are you, because those people don't buy prime lenses.
Do you know how to use your on camera flash? There's more to it than pressing the button to pop it up. Do you know how to drag the shutter or use flash compensation? Do you know how to soften the light iwth one with a piece of tissue? Do you know how to balance flash and ambient?
That little on camera flash is great for family snaps. No one carries studio lighting with them. There isn't always a nice surface to bounce off, and sometimes your family will mind big flash much more than something small.
It amazes me that the same people who think on camera flash is awful are fine with a single overly yellow overhead source of light and many even shoot in JPG and don't bother to correct white balance. They heard or read some pro say once that on camera flash is the worst thing that you can do and not only believed it but repeat it. Then they will show you horrible blurry pics with a yellow cast that they're proud of. I've even seen this in tutorials by pros, though at least they usually fix the colour casts!
@syousef: yeah on camera flash definitely has its uses. As an example, you can create some stunning outdoor portraits with the model backlit by the sun to create rim lighting, and the on camera flash for fill.
Bounced flash indoors doesnt look too bad either (if you want cheap speedlite with ttl check out the yongnuo 568).
You just need to know when/when not to use on camera flash. If your going to take a portrait outdoors at night with the pop up flash on default settings it will look terrible - your subject will be exposed and background completely dark. Go into slow sync mode or manually dial down the shutter and it will look way better. Know the effect front curtain vs rear curtain flash will have in this situation as well.
I think people dont know or to scared to use flash properly they say you're better of going no flash and a fast lens like the 35mm f1.8. Dial in f1.8 to take a group shot of say at least 3 people plus at night - you have no chance of getting them all in focus if the shot is waist up. You got no choice but to use the flash! Or tell them too keep still and use a slow shutter speed with VR - which most primes this wide dont have. Im not knocking the 35 f1.8 either, I love this lens - incredibly sharp especially at around f4/f5.6, but its not the only solution for handheld night shots.
Also for the record, I prefer off camera flash. But its a learning curve, and you cant always be bothered. I know I dont always carry around my light stand and umbrella, but the pop up flash is always on the camera
Is that no professional photographer buys an expensive camera? Sorry. That statement is ridiculous. You buy a body that's going to be well suited to what you're going to be doing. If you don't need bells and whistles don't spend the money on them.
I'm not talking about professional photographers. I've shot with a D4s, I've shot with a D800. My daily camera is a D600. I'm privy to the benefits higher up models give, but if you're taking happy snaps of your family, let's face it, the D3100 or D3200 doesn't matter.
I doubt you'll find a 35mm 1.8G for $146. The cheapest I'm seeing is $149 plus a significant shipping charge for grey market. It's more like $200.
$150 used is a common price. You can probably sell the 55-200mm for a little more than $100 as well.
You do realise the 35mm is soft wide open right? Also do you know how shallow the DoF is at 1.8? If your subject turns sideways you're bound to have one eye in focus and not the other. Learn to bounce a flash and you can use either lens at an appropriate aperture and have very nice looking pics. You'll need to spend $300-$500 on that flash but you can use it with every lens.
If you can't focus at f/1.8 on a crop body (which is the same as f/2.7 on FF) then you shouldn't be in the business of photography.
Also, if you're worrying about "softness", then you're worrying about the wrong things. Do your pictures look soft when printed out 4x6" and put in an album? Probably not. Are they soft at 100% crop, maybe, but do we look at photos at 100% crop? No.
Plus, the 35mm f/1.8G is sharp at f/1.8. It's more likely you missed focus.
At least one of those stops is blur. If you don't care about blur and all you're doing is posting to facebook, save some money and stick to the camera on your phone. And the newer camera will give you 1 stop of light. If you care enough you'll buy both the better camera (which makes every single lens you own better in low light) and the prime.
You're missing the point. The point of the discussion is whether to buy the D3200 or the D3100. I'm saying buy the D3100 and save the cash and spend it on some lenses. You're saying buy both the D3200 and the lenses, well no shit sherlock, why don't you buy a D4s and the f/2.8 trinity as well?
If you don't understand the difference 24MP makes compared to 14MP don't even bother talking to me.
Man, you sound like a typical (profanity) on DPR forums who spends more time jacking off to his camera's MP rather than taking pictures. But I'm sure you're not like that, the truth is, for most people there's no difference between 14MP and 24MP. If you need the extra resolution, you know who you are.
Who the heck even prints 4x6s anymore? I don't. I'm typically viewing on a large monitor or big screen TV…which is 2-4MP….well until you zoom in or crop. Which people who care about image quality do.
4x6" prints at 300DPI is higher resolution than 1080p, are you retarded?
Have you ever heard of cropping??? Do you really think the only thing you can do with an image is print it at full resolution? That's like suggesting your car is only for driving to the shops.
And how much do you crop in?
Really? You've never zoomed in or cropped a picture? You think this is something people who'l spend money on a DSLR and want to put the time into better images aren't interested in doing? I'm not talking about the people who buy their camera and leave it on auto. And neither are you, because those people don't buy prime lenses.
Of course I have. I've shot on a D3, 12MP file, cropped in, resulted in an 8MP file, which is still much more resolution than any monitor I own and I'm not making mural sized prints to exhibit at the art gallery.
I'm not talking about professional photographers. I've shot with a D4s, I've shot with a D800. My daily camera is a D600. I'm privy to the benefits higher up models give, but if you're taking happy snaps of your family, let's face it, the D3100 or D3200 doesn't matter.
The camera always matters especially when you're pushing the boundaries on a crop body.
$150 used is a common price. You can probably sell the 55-200mm for a little more than $100 as well.
Ok but we weren't talking used.
If you can't focus at f/1.8 on a crop body (which is the same as f/2.7 on FF) then you shouldn't be in the business of photography.
I can focus just fine thanks and I own that lens, but there are plenty of folks who don't have experience shooting at f/1.8 that you just insulted.
Also, if you're worrying about "softness", then you're worrying about the wrong things. Do your pictures look soft when printed out 4x6" and put in an album? Probably not. Are they soft at 100% crop, maybe, but do we look at photos at 100% crop? No.
I already told you I don't print 4x6 so I don't care whether they're soft or not at 4x6. Get your head out of the 1980s man.
Plus, the 35mm f/1.8G is sharp at f/1.8. It's more likely you missed focus.
See the MTF numbers here. They don't lie.
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/422-n…
You're missing the point. The point of the discussion is whether to buy the D3200 or the D3100. I'm saying buy the D3100 and save the cash and spend it on some lenses. You're saying buy both the D3200 and the lenses, well no shit sherlock, why don't you buy a D4s and the f/2.8 trinity as well?
And I'm saying you need to stop down on the 35mm f/1.8 to get better sharpness and also so your DoF isn't wafer thin when you're shooting a child that's dancing around playfully.
Man, you sound like a typical (profanity) on DPR forums who spends more time jacking off to his camera's MP rather than taking pictures. But I'm sure you're not like that, the truth is, for most people there's no difference between 14MP and 24MP. If you need the extra resolution, you know who you are.
Once again, and without the profanity, do you not know what a crop is? You can save your breath with the posturing - I waste very little time on such rubbish.
And how much do you crop in?
For soccer shots I've croped in to 1/4 or 1/8th when I've had to. I can't afford/justify anything beyond 300mm with decent IQ.
4x6" prints at 300DPI is higher resolution than 1080p, are you retarded?
First person to start hurling blatant abuse has run out of things to say and lost the argument.
Of course I have. I've shot on a D3, 12MP file, cropped in, resulted in an 8MP file, which is still much more resolution than any monitor I own and I'm not making mural sized prints to exhibit at the art gallery
Is that meant to impress me? It only makes me wonder how you could possibly not understand the benefits of a better body.
yeah on camera flash definitely has its uses. As an example, you can create some stunning outdoor portraits with the model backlit by the sun to create rim lighting, and the on camera flash for fill.
I was doing just at that the park with my kids a couple of hours ago.
Sounds like you konw what you're doing with a flash btw. Not a David Hobby (strobist.com) enthusiast are you?
The camera always matters especially when you're pushing the boundaries on a crop body.
Alright, let's have a challenge then, I'll take two pictures, one with a Nikon D600 and one with a Nikon D7000 and let's see if you can differentiate them. I'll remove the EXIF data so you can't cheat.
The difference between a D600 and D7000 is much more substantial than between a D3100 and D3200, so if you can't tell the difference, there's no way you can between a D3100 and a D3200.
I already told you I don't print 4x6 so I don't care whether they're soft or not at 4x6. Get your head out of the 1980s man.
I refer to 4x6" 300DPI prints because they are higher resolution than most other uses, including viewing on 1080p. That's why I called you an idiot.
See the MTF numbers here. They don't lie.
Unless you know your Fourier transforms, point spread functions, pupil functions, Nyquist rates and convolution, don't lecture me about modulation transfer functions, which, by the way, have very little to do with real photography, unless you're a DPR forum loser who jacks off to his photos at 100% crop, which is not how we view photos.
Is that meant to impress me? It only makes me wonder how you could possibly not understand the benefits of a better body.
Better build quality, higher FPS, nicer feel…etc.
You don't get better picture quality, that's what marketing departments and DPR forum losers want you to think. Real photographers have known for a long time that it's all a ploy to have everyone buy new cameras every year.
If you're so confident in your "better bodies" argument, take my challenge above.
Alright, let's have a challenge then, I'll take two pictures, one with a Nikon D600 and one with a Nikon D7000 and let's see if you can differentiate them. I'll remove the EXIF data so you can't cheat.
Do I get to pick the shots or are you just going to take lazy shots on a sunny day with fluffy white clouds outdoors that don't challenge either camera?
Because if you want to shoot something challenging try my 4 year old dancing around and giving her concert in my dimly lit lounge room without flash. I'll give her a nice sugary treat beforehand so you can't cheat. If you can't take advantage of the low light capability of the D600 to get a better shot for pity sake sell it.
Or I'll tell you what let's stick my 70-300VR on both and go to an airshow where you want every bit of reach you can get. If you're a good photog, you should be able to take advantage of the reach you get with the crop body.
In any case this is crazy. Why would you have spent the money on the D600 if a D7000 can take the equivalent shot without any problem? Do you just like throwing money away?
Hey wanna swap a D90 in good working order for your D7000, assuming it's in good working order? The resolution doesn't matter right? Yeah thought not.
The difference between a D600 and D7000 is much more substantial than between a D3100 and D3200, so if you can't tell the difference, there's no way you can between a D3100 and a D3200.
You haven't proven that I can't tell the difference, so your argument isn't valid.
I refer to 4x6" 300DPI prints because they are higher resolution than most other uses, including viewing on 1080p. That's why I called you an idiot.
You called me an idiot because you don't know how to handle frustration in an argument without abusing someone.
My first camera was 2MP point and shoot and I was able to obtain print passable A4 prints from that. Then I moved to a 4MP Olympus superzoom and thought Wow. The D70 knocked my socks off and the move from D70 to D90 also impressed. Just because some pictures printed well, that doesn't mean the shot wouldn't have been better taken with the next camera. Nor does it mean all the shots I obtained with the subsequent camera would have been possible with the previous one.
If the camera didn't matter we'd all be using cardboard box pinhole cameras. You are way way way too fixated on resolution not mattering. It matters for somethings more than others. Combined with an increased signal to noise ratio the newer sensors have gotten better with each generation for the last few.
Unless you know your Fourier transforms, point spread functions, pupil functions, Nyquist rates and convolution, don't lecture me about modulation transfer functions, which, by the way, have very little to do with real photography, unless you're a DPR forum loser who jacks off to his photos at 100% crop, which is not how we view photos.
You think you're the only one that has studied fourier transforms? I don't know what your background is but you're making a fool of yourself. I have an astronomy masters degree if that gives you some clue about the math I do and don't know.
For pity sake would you stop being so rude as to insult random people on a different forum that are not part of this conversation and can't defend themselves here (not that they'd bother)? I have no idea what your beef with them is but it's just uncivilised and uncalled for. And while we're at it can you please post one message that doesn't contain a reference to masturbation?
Better build quality, higher FPS, nicer feel…etc…..You don't get better picture quality, that's what marketing departments and DPR forum losers want you to think. Real photographers have known for a long time that it's all a ploy to have everyone buy new cameras every year.
Now you're really not talking any sense. You definitely get 1-2 stops of low light performance out of a full frame camera body compared to the same generation crop body. If real photographers have worked out it's all a scam, why aren't they all using Nikon D40 and Canon 400D cameras to run their business. Oh that's right. The output isn't up to scratch for what's expected today. Like most conspiracy theories this one makes no sense and doesn't stand up to basic scrutiny.
Are we done yet? Or do I need to read another post insulting random people on DPR that needlessly discusses their sexual habits?
How I like to think of it is:
The sensor size in this case APS-C determines how much light it can gather (more light usually gives more information). The resolution determines how many different things it can "see" or resolve as Namesareapain mentioned.
if someone reckon 10+ megapixels are low, the great chances are they have no clue about what the hell aps-c and sensor sizes mean.
I still have my 6MP D70s for it's wonderful 1/500th flash sync (hackable to 1/8000th with manual flash with a tiny sliver of paper or plastic)
But no way would I use that camera over my D90 or 700D for everyday shooting. I could make it work if I had to but I wouldn't choose it.
The technology has moved on. Spectacular photos you can zoom and zoom and zoom in on with your PC, tablet or phone are now everyday and unremarkable.
14MP (heck even 6MP) is enough. 24MP is better. 10 years ago 6MP was state of the art. Not so today.
Hence the clearance
I see some ads on gumtree trying to sell 2-3 year ones for around $600, probably because their total purchase cost was 1k
lol
$600 is a bit much I agree but $450 used would be a steal, so $300 new is fantastic.
Its a great entry level camera. Old tech but for the price its fantastic. I have mine over a year now and its been working great. Have taken plenty of fantastic photos that I've improved on in Photoshop. If you Dont know much about cameras then this is a great choice. I see a lot of foolish people with the D7100 for 4 times the price of this achieve similar results because they use auto everything..
I'm considering picking this up st this price for my girlfriend if I can find it.
The D7100 is probably the best DX camera you can own at the moment but yes it's expensive and it also has a couple of major flaws - like a tiny buffer that fills with RAW in 1 second of shooting limiting your ability to take action bursts. If you're not going to take your DSLR off auto you're right the D3100 should do fine. You would get slightly better image quality and low light pictures with a newer model though.
Indeed that's why I said D7100 as its top end DX. There are some good functions on it though but walking by people with it and seeing it set to auto is criminal.
It's their money to waste I suppose. But I definitely see your point.
I love my D7100! But I agree, if you don't know what the benefits of having twin dials, dedicated buttons for WB/ISO/AF/etc, 100% pentaprism viewfinder, etc will do to your photography then you're much better off with the D3xxx/D5xxx series.
The buffer is a real shame though! This is why pros that shoot with crop sensor I think prefer the 7D. The mark II has to be the best crop sensor DSLR at the moment (if you're prepared to pay almost as much as it costs for a full frame body)
like a tiny buffer that fills with RAW in 1 second of shooting limiting your ability to take action bursts
Shoot JPG for action, like pros do. Leave RAW for landscapes.
If you're free, head down to the Australian Open in a couple of weeks and peep at what the pros courtside shoot on. They're all on JPGs with their D4s and 1DX pro bodies, churning out 11 - 12 FPS.
Not everyone needs to or wants to shoot like a pro…a pro sports tog has to pump out images fast, the news cycle doesn't have time to wait for edited images. They have years of experience in the field to get their settings right in camera. An enthusiast may want to spend some time editing their photos later because they don't have all those years of experience under their belt, nor do they have the time constraints a pro would. Pro's have equipment at their disposal, carry around multiple bodies as well, maybe even have other bodies setup around the stadium to remotely take shots. While we all wish we could shoot like a pro, in reality a pro does things very different to an enthusiast to ensure they get paid.
Pay with 7.5% groupon bigw gift card brings it down to 277.50$
Just grabbed last one from Merrylands NSW store. I asked the guy to check stock level at nearby Big Ws. There might be one unit left on each of these stores: Auburn, Fairfield, wetherill Park and Bankstown.
Lucky guy
Sold mine cheap at gumtree to a lucky guy. Not making money out of it. I'm just passing the bargain. :D
Isn't that a waste of time and effort though?
Not really. I just need the 200mm lens. So it ended up costing me just $50 for it. Not trying to rip off peoples too, I'm a fair guy. :)
$250 for a SLK. Not bad huh.
I've done a fingerprint analysis from your photo and I was wondering if you'd mind coming to the local police station to help us with our enquiries.
Thanks - Inspector Oz Bargain
I remember back when I had the D3200. Loved the high resolution, so if you have the extra money to spend, I recommend D3200 instead of 3100.
I sold it simply because these DSLRs are too big and heavy, went for mirrorless instead.
How does this compare the the 600D?
I own both Canon and Nikon. I have a 600D but I do not own the D3100. (My latest Nikon is the D90). The 600D would be much better except you would have to buy another lens for the reach. I would buy the 55-250STM (which I own as of 2 days ago). The major camera retailers have that lens for $250.
I went with digidirect and got a great deal but it did take them 2 weeks and a lot of chasing up to fulfill my orders.
Also be aware that there is a cashback offer - if you buy the 600D it's $100 off. If you buy a 700D it's $150 off. You can double either of those amounts if you buy another Canon branded accessory for over $200. (The 55-250STM lens would qualify). BUT it has to be on the same receipt so forget buying it from BigW.
Edit: Realise that if you get further into photography going with more than one brand of gear gets expensive quickly because lenses, flashes and some other accessories aren't interchangable.
One left at Epping Vic
… Not anymore!
Excellent price if this is what you're after for a first DSLR. The other way it would be useful is if you just wanted a couple of throw around lenses you didn't want to worry about. You could sell the body for $100 and keep the lenses. These lenses will work on any crop sensor (DX) DSLR sold since about 2005 and some of the full frame ones in lower resolution
If you're planning to break it up and sell the bits, not so much. You'd get your money back but not much more. It might sell on Gumtree for a little more if you advertise as new unopened..
Seems no stock in QLD : (…
How do you know that? Which stores have you checked?
Heaps stores. Southeast, West. You can try your luck. Let me know if there's an extra one left.
These are like Officeworks clearance items. There is barely any stock anywhere.
Just picked up one in Nambour. Were two left when i put one on hold last night. Forgot to ask when i picked up mine today. May still be one left.
tried Arndale (Kilkenny), Marion, Cumberland Park, Elizabeth and Hallett Cove in SA with no luck. Please let me know if you find any stock in Adelaide.
This is a great deal. A DSLR for the price of a decent point and shoot.
This was my wifes first DSLR and the difference in picture quality between it and a similarly priced point and shoot is amazing.
The downside she is now into photography and recently bought the D7100. $$$ Another great camera though.
no deal, too hard to take selfies with pouting lips
Use the 18mm-50mm and set it on 18mm.. Crop out the tourists behind you later.
had this for 4-5 years. Very good camera. Would recommend to anyone interested in entering the world of dslr.
Great entry level camera. Sell the additional lens and buy a 50mm f/1.8 lens and you're set! Unless you can find a cheap 30mm f/1.8 lens, due to the cropped sensor.
bear in mind the ~$100 50mm 1.8D won't autofocus on this body.
Both the 35mm and 50mm 1.8G (which do AF on this body) are >$200
I checked Werribee, Altona Meadows, Sunshine and Watergarden and none of them have stock. Wanted to have a cheap good camera but will have to just skip this time.. Watergarden operator asked me if I was after Nikon camera which I said yes to. The whole conversation took less than 10 sec !
My bad on Altona Meadows, called them up dead on open time and put it on hold til lunchtime. Just got it and playing with it now :-)
I have one of these, great camera. Paid a lot, lot more than that though when it was purchased :(
All tech gear including camera gear depreciates. You're not alone.
yeah good 1st dSLR that will CRAP all over a sub $400 point&shoot,
BUT! resale value (even if un-used) would be;
18-55VR lens $70
55-200VR Lens $120
D3100 Body only $80
so you can buy it,
have a play,
see if it's for you,
if not,
then sell and loose 10%
…..having said that a D3100 + 35mm prime lens, would be an awesome walkabout / street combo.
Agree although I think you would be lucky to sell the kit telephoto zoom at that price
Great price. Bought this on release for over $500. (Single kit too!)
Takes fantastic pics IMO. Great entry level DSLR.
1 of each left at Macarthur Square but that was at 8.00 this morning.
Good entry for the aspiring photographer. Sell the kit lenses included and splurge on a 24-70 lense.
If you're in the market for a point and shoot, get this this instead and lock it to full auto.
Not that I'm a Nikon fan, but saw one this morning at BigW Springwood (QLD). Maybe a good idea to call up to check first.
Bought one from Big W Southland, there was one still in stock though, this was at around 11
Thanks Perthian. Great deal. Rang up 8.30am and was told last in stock and got it :) taigum Big W (finally a win lol). Thanks again this is a great deal, much appreciated.
No Stock in Waverly garden VIC Big W
No D3100 left at Wonthaggi, Vic. D3200 is $500.
Nice sale, the camera is pretty old though.
Cumberland Park SA - no stock
TTP SA - no stock
Robina Qld - no stock (d3100/d3200)
Not sure about other stores, the guy told me there was none and then said there was under a different code.
Picked up the last d3100 was ex display though :/
Regarding the discussion in if its a good buy? The reason I bought it was because I've never owned a non point and shoot, and I wanted to try my hand at seeing if the photography hobby is for me, felt it was a good price. And if it turns out I don't have a nack for it. I've only spent 300.
If It doesn't out I do enjoy it, then it's 300 well spent. :)
I took this on my honeymoon and went super snap happy with it. Really great entry level camera and it's very satisfying when you know that you've captured a good shot.
Joondalup WA No stock, but they just checked the Armadale store who have a few in stock. They wont hold so no point me driving down there, but if anyone manages to get into Armadale and wants to pick one up for me I will of course be eternally grateful…….
Any stock left in Sydney?
If you are planning to only shoot on "Auto", dont buy this camera. Leave it for someone else.
Got the last one from Craigieburn Big W
sell all the lenses and get 35mm f1.8 :)
This was my first DSLR a few years ago and took it travelling around the world. I learnt how to use settings as I went and it was easy to learn the basics about DSLR use. It took some incredible pictures (which I really should get around to printing…) but does struggle in low light. While travelling, most of my photos were taken outside with natural light however now that I have a little baby it's annoying to use. It doesn't do very well with low light situations - especially with a moving subject!
Great price though - I hate to think what I paid in 2011.
Alright, which one of you ratbags is this?
http://www.gumtree.com.au/s-ad/burwood/digital-cameras/nikon…
Easy, meet in person in Burwood or Knox on pickup. All will be revealed.
I'd love to see someone who lives close to those areas to KO this guy.
LOL
Who would want to buy it @ 480? What a rip off.
Hi all. Have checked several stores in SA, and none in stock. I am after the 55-200mm VR Lens only. If anyone has purchased this deal and would like to sell it, please PM me with an offer. Cheers.
Just got the last one from Coffs harbour. It didnt have a clearance sticker on it and i asked the kid to scan it and when it came back as $300 he said "wow, i didnt even know about this"
Soo this leads me to believe its a nation wide deal :)
Ps: Going overseas (the 1050 Peru deal posted awhile ago) in a few weeks so will claim the GST back
Few available in Sydney west
Which store?
already on sale all over gumtree.. opportunists!!
opportunists!!
Not all. ;)
One listed on gumtree for $450 last night has gone this morning. Quick profit for someone.
Picked up last unit from underwood. They are out of stock for 1100 canon so i picked this one instead. 100 extra for 55 200mm lens i suppose. Cheers op
Penrith has 2 left.
Anybody willing to sell the 55-200 lens separately in WA?
Any stock in NSW? Rouse Hill maybe, anyone know?
Call 'em, mate.
Closed, bro. Will call tomor… I was looking at getting this camera or the d5200, the twin lenses at this price is awesome tho, thanks OP.
Thanks for posting the D3200 Harvey Norman Deal!
Cheekily not promoted in-store at all it seems, but in stock at plenty of locations and $396 - $50 (cashback) - $36 (GST refund if you're travelling overseas in the next 30 days) = $310 is outstanding value if you're after the newer model and don't necessarily need the additional lens
you mean 60 days
Cheers mate i have totally forgotten about gst. Going os in 2 weeks time (one of the reason getting the camera). Not bad getting back 30 bux that would be an extra night in Malaysia :)
This is one hell of most expensive used camera. I can buy a house with that kind of money! :D
http://www.gumtree.com.au/s-ad/werribee/digital-cameras/perf…
Screenie before it gets edited:
http://files.ozbargain.com.au/upload/72858/28007/clipboard01…
Well this is what I am doing.
Nikon D3200 + 18-55mm VR II Kit for $308.22 or $260.73 with TRS.
Purchase the Nikon D3200 + 18-55mm VR II Kit from TGG via CashRewards on eBay for $529 - $10.58 (2% cashrewards):
http://www.cashrewards.com.au
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Nikon-VBK330ZA-D3200-Single-Lens-…
Use TGG 30 Day Price Guarantee to Match HN or OW (currently selling for $396) the next day:
http://www.thegoodguys.com.au/30-day-price-guarantee
http://www.harveynorman.com.au/cameras-printers-ink/nikon-24…
http://www.officeworks.com.au/shop/officeworks/nikon-d3200-d…
Difference between $529 and $396 = $133 + 20% ($26.60) as TGG refunds you 120% of the difference.
So TGG will refund you $159.60, Making the camera $369.40
$369.40 - $50 (Nikon Cashback) = $319.40
$319.40 - $10.58 (CashRewards) = $308.82
TRS would be from the original receipt of $529 which is $48.09
$308.82 - $48.09 = $260.73
So for $308.22 or $260.73 with TRS you get a Nikon D3200 + 18-55mm VR II Kit.
I believe this is a bargain but also a lot of work to do for some just to save an extra $37.78 but up to you guys to decide, after all we are OzBargainers, so every cent counts towards another bargain!!! =]
Well played sir, that is impressive indeed!
However you have a problem with this: "30 Day Price Guarantee excludes […] items sold on marketplace websites such as eBay" - so there goes your Cash Rewards saving (hope you haven't bought from eBay yet!).
Also keep in mind the risk of HN/OW suddenly raising prices after your TGG purchase, not sure how quickly after your purchase TGG can verify the claim?
Report back how it went if you go ahead with it!
The 30 Day Price Guarantee also works for eBay purchases ^_^
Many people have already use the 30 Day Price Guarantee for other items on eBay.
Also do they know what a raw image is? And if so who actually takes them?