Looking for a good entry level camera with value for money
I have shortlisted these models
Nikon D3300 - Cheapest it has gone was for about $250
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/NEW-Nikon-VBK390ZA-D3300-Single-L…
Canon EOS M3
can go down up to $315 after TRS refund
https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/251240
Open for any other models as well.
I think that is a bit harsh. Kit lenses are fine for a first DSLR.
For somebody moving from a compact, there is much to learn about photography aside from the superior image quality a prime will provide.
I think the Nikon offers incredible value if you can get it anywhere near the $250 price mentioned.
Thanks for your response.
This will be my first DSLR camera and I hate carrying heavy bags. I am looking at something portable with quality output and of course, value for money.
After saying that, both nikon and canon have a good selection of quality lenses. Out of those two cameras I'd choose the nikon because it has an optical viewfinder.
If you want a smaller mirrorless system consider micro four thirds; the range of lenses is good.
Is the canon one that bad if it doesn't come with a viewfinder ?
I think a viewfinder will make you a better photographer, but I am biased because I find it so essential (and what I learned with).
Others people who produce quite nice pictures can sometimes live without them.
To explain, at least for me, a viewfinder shows a crystal clear, instantaneous, precise view of the world. You can assess lighting and focus, gather information and a 'feel' for the picture in a moment.
Shooting from a screen isn't the same. Some nice photos can be taken, but they are poor with moving subjects, and often with variably lit subjects. They can be ambiguous about focus, which is potentially a disaster.
And at its heart, they make taking pictures feel like watching the TV. If you are the kind of person that is happy to stay home and watch Getaway instead of visiting the Hong Kong market, a screen will be fine. If you can feel the difference between 'seeing' something reproduced and 'seeing' it when you are right there, you will find a view finder very helpful.
You can obviously tell I feel strongly about this. The counter argument is modern electronics allow a 'nearly' as good experience with a more compact form factor. I won't lie. A smaller camera is always better for taking oics, because it might mean one more occasion you took pics with a better camera instead of leaving it at home and using your phone ;-)
I''m such a tragic on this I recently bought a second hand Fujifilm x100, a small, fixed lens (no zoom for better clarity) camera with a viewfinder. The pleasure I get from taking photos with it is immense. Not spend $1500 on the new model, immense, but close. And the precise lens, and its ability to handle low light, plus the artistic 'blurring' behind the focus point make people who don't know about photography go 'wow' when they see the output. You can get similar results with either camera you linked, but you probably need a prime lens (e.g. 50mm f2).
Now don't get me started on range finders!
I've been away, sorry for the late reply.
I would like to emphasise what mskeggs has said and add some more good reasons. I'm sure there are more reasons, of course.
1. shooting outdoors in bright light: looking through a view finder is the only answer to this.
2. moving subjects: it is much easier to follow a moving subject accurately with the view finder.
3. less blurry photos in low light: with the camera held against your head, it is really stable. Holding the camera with your hands only is pretty shaky.
4. more accurate: because camera is less shaky it is easier to lock focus on what you want to lock focus onto.
I do use the screen for previewing or menu changes, and often when the camera is on a tripod. I also use the screen for ground level or low shots (my screen tilts up). I have also used it for overhead shooting (shooting over the heads of a crowd).
If you get a camera with a view finder you simply have more options.
You might want to consider what sort of lens/es you want if you go in this direction. Then look at the availability of the lenses you want at the quality you want and their cost.
For either of those deals listed, I wouldn't want the lenses. If I was on a budget I'd get a good prime lens, which should also be cheap - eg 50mm. I wouldn't recommend a kit lens to anyone unless they weren't particularly interested in photography.