Beginner Quick (hopefully) question

C

CreepyBede

Suspended / Banned
Messages
8
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello everyone,

Looking to buy a first decent camera, and it looks like it will be the D3300, which seems pretty well regarded. I was all set to make the purchase, and then found that many of the offers seem to have different lenses sold with the body. For example the argos (currently cheapest) seems to have a AF-P 18-55G, whereas on amazon I can find AF-P 18-55VR, and others. I'd like to keep the cost down, however if there is a big difference in quality then I'd rather pay the extra circa £30. Any thoughts or guidance from you fine folks would be appreciated?


If its helpful, I don't have a particular kind of photography in mind yet (although I quite like night shots), just looking for something to try a variety of different things out, but would prefer to buy something good at the outset with room in it to grow. Sure I'll be adding more lenses later, but would rather avoid any disappointment for the first!
 
Hello CB and welcome to TP.

I don't know Nikon well but the VR lens has vibration reduction - http://www.nikon.com/news/2016/0105_lens_01.htm

The link suggests they are similar, if not identical, apart from the vibration reduction but I'm sure others who know more than me will be along to advise.

Dave
 
Thanks for the reply Dave, and the welcome!

I suppose my question should be - how important is vibration reduction? Does it fall under "nice to have," or "just pay the extra, it'll be worth it"? :) And is there anything else that I should really be trying to get in the lens that comes with the body?
 
If you can hold the camera steady the VR will probably not be too important at the focal length you state (18-55mm) but it does become increasingly important as the focal length (and the pixel count) increases.

Since the D3300 has 24MP I personally would recommend getting the VR lens.
 
Hi, thanks for clarifying, sounds like I'd be as well to pay the small amount extra for the VR! Do you know if there's anything else I should be trying to get in the lens that's packaged with the body? I'm not sure how many packaged variants exist out there for sale...
 
i bought a D3300 which came with an 18-55 and a 55-200 both VR for about£330 last christmas. It is brilliant. I have never seen such good images from something such good value. you will not be disappointed. I also bought an Nikkor f.14 50mm and a Tamron 70-300mm, Job done (for now).
 
I would also recommend the Nikon 35mm 1.8. I used it on my d3300 90% of the time and the images from it were stunning.
 
18-55 will be a bit short for many things, if you are thinking wildlife, birds etc as well.
For night shots, you many find the aperture a bit limiting so will need a tripod for longer exposure
 
So it turns out that I've been an idiot, and in trying to make sure I've got the lens with VR, I've managed to order a D3200 instead of the D3300 I was aiming for.

Camera hasn't yet arrived, but I wonder if anyone can offer an opinion on how the two stack up? I'm trying to decide whether to return or stick when it arrives.
 
CreepyBede said:
So it turns out that I've been an idiot, and in trying to make sure I've got the lens with VR, I've managed to order a D3200 instead of the D3300 I was aiming for.

Camera hasn't yet arrived, but I wonder if anyone can offer an opinion on how the two stack up? I'm trying to decide whether to return or stick when it arrives.
Click to expand...
They're both decent cameras. The 3300 is newer, and lighter. A few other differences that may not make much difference for general use.
How much difference in cost would be my main question. If the difference is small, it may be worth getting the 3300, on the other hand, if there's a decent saving, keep the 3200.....and save for your next lens :)
 
I think the only major difference is the iso, if you are planning on much low light work then I'd suggest it may need swapping. Burst shooting is 1fps less with the D3200. Otherwise as @Bobsyeruncle says, if the saving is decent, stick with it.
 
Hmm. Tempted to stick with it. The night shots aspect concerns me (I'd very much like to do this), but cannot seem to find a decent deal on the D3300, I think because the D3400 is on its way (and that's about £150 more...). Thanks for the input again people :)
 
CreepyBede said:
Hmm. Tempted to stick with it. The night shots aspect concerns me (I'd very much like to do this), but cannot seem to find a decent deal on the D3300, I think because the D3400 is on its way (and that's about £150 more...). Thanks for the input again people :)
Click to expand...
Depends on whether your talking low light or night. Both will take decent night shots at lower iso if using a tripod. The newer model has a higher max iso, but the chances are you'd never go that high anyway. The older model has better dynamic range, which would be better for everyday use than higher max iso. If your happy with the deal you got,stick with it. It's easy to get all hung up on minor differences to the tech spec.
 
Thanks bobsyouruncle - that helped firm up my decision I think, appreciate you taking the time. Can I ask what you mean by night shot vs low light shot? I would have thought night shots would automatically be "low light"...
 
In a nutshell a Night shot is completely dark, so it's long exposure shot on a tripod.

Low light is dusk or shadows or poor artificial light. Low light tends to generate noise, better ISO capabilities on your camera reduce the noise in your low light shots.

This is an extremely simplified answer. So a d3300 would be better in low light, both will be fine for night shots ie of the stars.
 
Last edited:
CreepyBede said:
Can I ask what you mean by night shot vs low light shot? I would have thought night shots would automatically be "low light"...
Click to expand...
The two terms are generally (but, I agree, somewhat confusingly) used to differentiate between two approaches to handling a shortage of photons.

In "night shots", you get round the lack of light by putting the camera on a tripod and making a long exposure. Astro photography, star trails, car lights trails, city lights, stuff like that.

In "low light shots", you're trying to take a "normal" shot without a long exposure, and you compensate for the shortage of photons by making the sensor more sensitive, i.e. increasing the ISO.

Pretty much all DSLRs will cope with night shots quite happily. But for "low light shots", newer cameras tend to be better than older ones, other things being equal, due to improvements in sensor technology.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top