Deciding btw D7100 or D750......`

[blue_cheese]

Sorry i misunderstood your post...

 

[Kaso]

To me if you're just getting started it would make sense to start small to see if you're ACTUALLY interested in it. Too often people think one thing, and reality is completely different.

+1

The D3300 is great because it's 95% the camera of a D7100, yet costs 50% as much, and even includes a decent starter lens. I think it's poor advice to expect someone who thinks they want to get into photography the advice to run out and start buying a ton of expensive gear. Learn the basics with a D3x00, see if you even have a passion for it, and then move to something more expensive if you like it. In a year if the OP feels they have the passion and wants to pursue a career in photography they'll only be down $100 - $200. If they buy a D750 with the kit lens, initial cost will be $3000, and in a year or two if they don't like photography they'll be out probably $1000+ on resale. It's really a question of how committed the person is.

Additionally the D3x00 has everything one could want for learning the basics. A D7100 / D750 encourages one to use more of the options that are on the camera, however if you haven't learned the basics first, they're just crutches. Spend a year shooting a D3x00 in full manual, auto NOTHING. Do it until you can walk into a room, look around, come up with a shutter speed, ISO, and aperture setting that gets you real close. Think human light meter. You'll learn more about the technical elements of exposure and learn what works / doesn't work than you'd ever hope to learn than by sticking a D750 on Aperture priority, matrix metering, and auto iso. Sure the pictures will be better with the D750, but when you get in a tricky situation you'll be stuck. Yes you can learn these things on a D750, but if it turns out you don't LIKE them... then you're out a ton more money. I can't tell you how many times I've seen people buy the most expensive camera they can afford, never invest the time to learn how to use it, and then wonder why I got much better results with my old D3200 in the same exact situation they were shooting in... and I'm far from a professional. Focus on basics, not the gear first.

+1

If $$$ truly isn't an issue, then by all means, buy a D810, the holy trinity of Nikon 2.8 glass, 3 SB-910's, some flash stands, and hope that it works out.

I'll buy a second one for me.

 

[mosswings]

To me if you're just getting started it would make sense to start small to see if you're ACTUALLY interested in it. Too often people think one thing, and reality is completely different.

+1

The D3300 is great because it's 95% the camera of a D7100, yet costs 50% as much, and even includes a decent starter lens. I think it's poor advice to expect someone who thinks they want to get into photography the advice to run out and start buying a ton of expensive gear. Learn the basics with a D3x00, see if you even have a passion for it, and then move to something more expensive if you like it. In a year if the OP feels they have the passion and wants to pursue a career in photography they'll only be down $100 - $200. If they buy a D750 with the kit lens, initial cost will be $3000, and in a year or two if they don't like photography they'll be out probably $1000+ on resale. It's really a question of how committed the person is.

Additionally the D3x00 has everything one could want for learning the basics. A D7100 / D750 encourages one to use more of the options that are on the camera, however if you haven't learned the basics first, they're just crutches. Spend a year shooting a D3x00 in full manual, auto NOTHING. Do it until you can walk into a room, look around, come up with a shutter speed, ISO, and aperture setting that gets you real close. Think human light meter. You'll learn more about the technical elements of exposure and learn what works / doesn't work than you'd ever hope to learn than by sticking a D750 on Aperture priority, matrix metering, and auto iso. Sure the pictures will be better with the D750, but when you get in a tricky situation you'll be stuck. Yes you can learn these things on a D750, but if it turns out you don't LIKE them... then you're out a ton more money. I can't tell you how many times I've seen people buy the most expensive camera they can afford, never invest the time to learn how to use it, and then wonder why I got much better results with my old D3200 in the same exact situation they were shooting in... and I'm far from a professional. Focus on basics, not the gear first.

+1

If $$$ truly isn't an issue, then by all means, buy a D810, the holy trinity of Nikon 2.8 glass, 3 SB-910's, some flash stands, and hope that it works out.

I'll buy a second one for me.

+2. Well said biantii, better than me.

 

[Kaso]

The reason why so many of us recommend a fairly lightweight DX system for a beginner is that it offers an afforable entry point for high quality imaging. You may have noticed in the OP's first post a certain amount of unfamiliarity with the craft and business of photography. For a young person just exploring their life options, a $3500 investment just to get a camera in one's hands (D750+24-120, say) is usurial in the extreme. DX offers the ability to do that at less than half the cost with no real loss in learning opportunities.

+1

I contend that the best course of action would be to buy a USED DX body and good lens (yes, that lens can be FX if you want). There are a whole bunch of former enthusiast DX users who have upgraded to FX and are looking to recoup some of their upgrade costs. Take advantage of their choices in making your own.

+1

 

[BirgerH]

I would keep my job (or try to get a usually well-paid job) in Computer Information Systems with biweekly paychecks and medical insurance benefits.

On the side, I would also start with the awesome Nikon D3300 with 18-55mm VR II lens (only about $500) for a year and stick to a rigorous 365 project. I would read, learn, shoot, experiment, explore and reshoot passionately -- not for money, but for solid skills.

I am being serious and helpful.

Couldn't agree more. The d3300 is great for starting out and the kit costs less than most FF lenses.

How is the D3300 great? Unless you are experienced photographer and are certain the D3300 has the features you need, it is actually more difficult to use in challenging situations than a full featured body. I also do not believe the OP raised cost as an issue, as a matter of fact there was indication of this being a professional investment.

 

[Mediocre]

I would keep my job (or try to get a usually well-paid job) in Computer Information Systems with biweekly paychecks and medical insurance benefits.

On the side, I would also start with the awesome Nikon D3300 with 18-55mm VR II lens (only about $500) for a year and stick to a rigorous 365 project. I would read, learn, shoot, experiment, explore and reshoot passionately -- not for money, but for solid skills.

I am being serious and helpful.

Really appreciate that, That what I think I'm going do!! Thanks been reading that and analyzing that for 10 minutes... Thanks.

We're glad to hear that you were able to spend 10 minutes analyzing your life career choices. (!!)

We would note that CIS provides a great deal more employability and job security than photographic technology or wedding photography. Some do very well in photographic fields, of course, but there are reasons that most pursue various kinds of photography as a hobby. Making a living as a wedding photographer requires a lot of long hours and hard work, and it's by no means a sure thing.

Plus, as a well-paid IT analyst, you can buy any camera you want, without really considering whether it's "worth it" except to you and your recreational pursuit of photography.

Between the two cameras that you asked about, I'd recommend the D7100. The D750 is superior in many ways, but they aren't ways that you'll be in any position to appreciate for quite some time. By then, Nikon will have come out with something different, and, presumably, superior to the D750. For a couple of years of learning, at least, the D750 is not worth the extra cost of entry.

Like some others, I would actually recommend an even cheaper option than a D7100, at least until you figure out where you want to go with the photography thing. A factory refurb might be worth a look, or maybe a D5300. I don't particularly like the D3300 because there are too many things that are difficult to do with it, including things as basic as exposure bracketing.

 

[briantii]

Not sure how a D60 and D3x00 compare control wise, but for the exposure triangle which is probably the most important thing to master initially, absolutely zero menu diving is required on the D3x00.

Shoot raw on the D3x00 with auto white balance and you don't need to worry about changing that since it's completely fixable in post, so really only things that require menu diving are AF modes and release modes. You could easily argue if that's worth twice the price for someone just learning, but I'd tend to disagree. Once you know what those modes are, what they do, why you're setting them, etc... then absolutely it makes sense to step up to a body with dedicated controls for them. In the meantime the menus help to add context to what those settings actually do, which can be helpful for someone learning. Dedicated buttons are great if you know what you want and remember every setting... but on a D750, if you don't know remember what the difference between AFA and AFC are... you better have the manual handy. The D3x00 will have a gentle reminder in the menu.

Additionally you brought legacy knowledge from your film experience. The OP did not indicate any prior experience, yet is considering jumping into an extremely competitive field which requires vision and skills, that may not be intuitive to him and may not even be something he can learn. We all have special talents and the OP doesn't know if photography is one of his. It's like saying he wants to grow up an be an actor. For every Brad Pitt there are 10,000 actors struggling to make rent. Before jumping all in, you better know that it's what you want - "I think" isn't good enough. (well shouldn't be ;-) )

Also on the D3x00, I'm not gonna give you 25%... 80% is as low as I'll go. ;-) Image quality alone is worth at least 50%... and the D3300 is just as good if not better there.

 

[mosswings]

I would keep my job (or try to get a usually well-paid job) in Computer Information Systems with biweekly paychecks and medical insurance benefits.

On the side, I would also start with the awesome Nikon D3300 with 18-55mm VR II lens (only about $500) for a year and stick to a rigorous 365 project. I would read, learn, shoot, experiment, explore and reshoot passionately -- not for money, but for solid skills.

I am being serious and helpful.

Couldn't agree more. The d3300 is great for starting out and the kit costs less than most FF lenses.

How is the D3300 great? Unless you are experienced photographer and are certain the D3300 has the features you need, it is actually more difficult to use in challenging situations than a full featured body. I also do not believe the OP raised cost as an issue, as a matter of fact there was indication of this being a professional investment.

 

[richiebee]

(especially given Nikon's clear intention not to have professional grade DX lens offering -

I've seen something like this before, but don't understand it (since DX cameras can use all modern FX lenses). Can you explain what you mean by this statement?

I'm not trying to deny its truth. Just trying to understand how it is so.

 

[mosswings]

(especially given Nikon's clear intention not to have professional grade DX lens offering -

I've seen something like this before, but don't understand it (since DX cameras can use all modern FX lenses). Can you explain what you mean by this statement?

I'm not trying to deny its truth. Just trying to understand how it is so.

Trundle on over to ByThom.com and read some of the latest postings for a deep read of the market.

Nikon has been deemphasizing DX as a pro/enthusiast format for almost a decade now. It was always intended as a workaround until FX sensor prices came down, and now is squarely targeted at the casual shooter who nevers buys much more than the kit lens. Hence no DX pro lenses in the last DECADE.

Loading…

www.dslrbodies.com

Loading…

www.dslrbodies.com

 

[BirgerH]

I would keep my job (or try to get a usually well-paid job) in Computer Information Systems with biweekly paychecks and medical insurance benefits.

On the side, I would also start with the awesome Nikon D3300 with 18-55mm VR II lens (only about $500) for a year and stick to a rigorous 365 project. I would read, learn, shoot, experiment, explore and reshoot passionately -- not for money, but for solid skills.

I am being serious and helpful.

Couldn't agree more. The d3300 is great for starting out and the kit costs less than most FF lenses.

How is the D3300 great? Unless you are experienced photographer and are certain the D3300 has the features you need, it is actually more difficult to use in challenging situations than a full featured body. I also do not believe the OP raised cost as an issue, as a matter of fact there was indication of this being a professional investment.

--
"You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant."
-Harlan Ellison

To me if you're just getting started it would make sense to start small to see if you're ACTUALLY interested in it. Too often people think one thing, and reality is completely different.

The D3300 is great because it's 95% the camera of a D7100

Arhhh... 95% - you ask me, I would say 25%.

, yet costs 50% as much, and even includes a decent starter lens. I think it's poor advice to expect someone who thinks they want to get into photography the advice to run out and start buying a ton of expensive gear. Learn the basics with a D3x00, see if you even have a passion for it, and then move to something more expensive if you like it. In a year if the OP feels they have the passion and wants to pursue a career in photography they'll only be down $100 - $200. If they buy a D750 with the kit lens, initial cost will be $3000, and in a year or two if they don't like photography they'll be out probably $1000+ on resale. It's really a question of how committed the person is.

I really have to disagree. I started digital with the entry-level D60 - learned me nothing except that menu-diving was a pain. I had learned something from my film-cameras - most that controlling is a must, and that you need to learn to do it by your self. After that - you can use the auto.

If I had been a starter - and started with the entry-level - I'm very sure, my interest in photography would have disappeared rather quick.

Additionally the D3x00 has everything one could want for learning the basics. A D7100 / D750 encourages one to use more of the options that are on the camera, however if you haven't learned the basics first, they're just crutches. Spend a year shooting a D3x00 in full manual, auto NOTHING. Do it until you can walk into a room, look around, come up with a shutter speed, ISO, and aperture setting that gets you real close. Think human light meter. You'll learn more about the technical elements of exposure and learn what works / doesn't work than you'd ever hope to learn than by sticking a D750 on Aperture priority, matrix metering, and auto iso. Sure the pictures will be better with the D750, but when you get in a tricky situation you'll be stuck. Yes you can learn these things on a D750, but if it turns out you don't LIKE them... then you're out a ton more money. I can't tell you how many times I've seen people buy the most expensive camera they can afford, never invest the time to learn how to use it, and then wonder why I got much better results with my old D3200 in the same exact situation they were shooting in... and I'm far from a professional. Focus on basics, not the gear first.

It takes a decent hammer to learn to nail a spike decently. When learned you can use the heel of a shoe.

That's why in my mind blue_cheese is right.

If $$$ truly isn't an issue, then by all means, buy a D810, the holy trinity of Nikon 2.8 glass, 3 SB-910's, some flash stands, and hope that it works out.

BirgerH.

OK, we're getting into a religious war. I understand where you are coming from, Birger - I like and use the 2-wheel bodies, as much for the big bright viewfinder as the 2 wheels, but the D5500 has my curiosity piqued.

Still, I have a friend who used to be the photographer for his school publications. He shoots a D40x now and regularly eats my D7100 lunch in terms of nicely done photographs. Of course, he learned how to operate a camera in the film days when all you had was a match needle and a microprism VF to focus with.

Yes - as blue_cheese said - an experienced photographer. If you started to day - would you learn by a D3300?.

So your "decent hammer" analogy is apt here. But a D5500 or an old D90/D7000 is a great "decent hammer". A D750? For the not-quite-sure beginner, a gold-plated, uranium-headed bodyheat thermoforming grip hammer that can phone home.

Agreed. Gone to slam on the brakes a Little

BirgerH.

 

[Kerry Pierce]

Very good advice, IMO. You can throw away a lot of money, very quickly, in the pursuit of this hobby.

Turning pro takes a little more than just buying a camera and a couple of lenses.

Kerry

 

[rhlpetrus]

(especially given Nikon's clear intention not to have professional grade DX lens offering -

I've seen something like this before, but don't understand it (since DX cameras can use all modern FX lenses). Can you explain what you mean by this statement?

I'm not trying to deny its truth. Just trying to understand how it is so.

Trundle on over to ByThom.com and read some of the latest postings for a deep read of the market.

Nikon has been deemphasizing DX as a pro/enthusiast format for almost a decade now. It was always intended as a workaround until FX sensor prices came down, and now is squarely targeted at the casual shooter who nevers buys much more than the kit lens. Hence no DX pro lenses in the last DECADE.

http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/aha-quality-versus-size.html

http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/people-who-buy-lenses-are.html

Basically, using pro-level FF lenses on a DX camera partially negates one of its advantages, the possibility of a smaller and lighter system. For example, I have the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8, amore modern lens than the Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8, because I think the Nikkor could have been updated with technology that Nikon have used on their FF lineup of lenses, and it's not worth its high price tag as is.

But having to rely on 3rd party lenses is not what I think of building a real system. Where is the high Q UWA zoom, or fast WA primes, for DX? A FF 21 is already over 30mm in DX, so not really very WA these days.

And where is the pro-level DX body that used to be the workhorse of so many pros, like those in local newspapers, college services, etc? Nikon lost a market they created, very sad for a company that used to be synonymous to pro photography.

I haven't invested a single penny in DX lenses (or bodies, for that matter) since getting the D7000 in early 2011.

--
Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/
Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)

 

[rhlpetrus]

Giving the OP the benefit of the doubt (based on the starting post I have a lot of doubt), the goal is the best image quality: "I want the best Image I can get" , and a very clear intent to do a career change to a professional photographer (Albeit the details on that plan are a little wonky at best... but for all you know the OP has some talent that we are all unaware of, I personally did not see any samples of their attempts to photography to judge either way)

Extrapolating from what was asked, money and weight of the rig is not a primary concern... given the subjects identified I do not understand why a DX camera is being recommended (especially given Nikon's clear intention not to have professional grade DX lens offering - maximizing on your lens investment simply means you will need an FX body which also is needed for low light ability for events such as weddings. A D3xxx as a first time DSLR is probably the worst possible advice, I would argue that these cameras are NOT for beginners given their limitations and lack of expandability, rather they are for experienced photographers who know exactly what they are getting and that it will meet their needs in a smaller compact package. Auto mode on the D750 is just as easy to use, and doing everything else is easier given how many options you have (if you care to learn them).

Again, I am not so sure about how serious the OP was or what potential they have, but everyone else seems to be making assumptions that for some reason try to politely say that the OP does not know what they are asking for.

I was responding really to the popular notion that a dx shooter is always feeling inferior to his fx counterpart and lives in some sort of permanent state of envy. I am also responding to much in the op's post which says that his is just starting out in his path. At the very end of his post, he says he might one day want to be a wedding photographer. I don't know about you, but when I buy gear it is for today and the near future not some hypothetical possibility. He can start from zero with a D7100, see if he likes it, learn and grow, and one day, if he moves on to wedding photography, he can make choices that best suits him then. He seems quite aware of the price difference between dx and fx yet still underestimates it by a wide margin. $1.000 is not nearly enough to cover the difference of the D7100 with 18-140 and the D750 with 24-120 along with other expenses. Do you recommend the 24-120 for wedding photography or should he invest in pro lenses right away?

I am not disregarding the op's post. Rather, I am suggesting that going dx is a fine choice, one that I and many others (Renato included) continue to use and has oodles of image quality.

 

[mosswings]

Giving the OP the benefit of the doubt (based on the starting post I have a lot of doubt), the goal is the best image quality: "I want the best Image I can get" , and a very clear intent to do a career change to a professional photographer (Albeit the details on that plan are a little wonky at best... but for all you know the OP has some talent that we are all unaware of, I personally did not see any samples of their attempts to photography to judge either way)

Extrapolating from what was asked, money and weight of the rig is not a primary concern... given the subjects identified I do not understand why a DX camera is being recommended (especially given Nikon's clear intention not to have professional grade DX lens offering - maximizing on your lens investment simply means you will need an FX body which also is needed for low light ability for events such as weddings. A D3xxx as a first time DSLR is probably the worst possible advice, I would argue that these cameras are NOT for beginners given their limitations and lack of expandability, rather they are for experienced photographers who know exactly what they are getting and that it will meet their needs in a smaller compact package. Auto mode on the D750 is just as easy to use, and doing everything else is easier given how many options you have (if you care to learn them).

Again, I am not so sure about how serious the OP was or what potential they have, but everyone else seems to be making assumptions that for some reason try to politely say that the OP does not know what they are asking for.

I was responding really to the popular notion that a dx shooter is always feeling inferior to his fx counterpart and lives in some sort of permanent state of envy. I am also responding to much in the op's post which says that his is just starting out in his path. At the very end of his post, he says he might one day want to be a wedding photographer. I don't know about you, but when I buy gear it is for today and the near future not some hypothetical possibility. He can start from zero with a D7100, see if he likes it, learn and grow, and one day, if he moves on to wedding photography, he can make choices that best suits him then. He seems quite aware of the price difference between dx and fx yet still underestimates it by a wide margin. $1.000 is not nearly enough to cover the difference of the D7100 with 18-140 and the D750 with 24-120 along with other expenses. Do you recommend the 24-120 for wedding photography or should he invest in pro lenses right away?

I am not disregarding the op's post. Rather, I am suggesting that going dx is a fine choice, one that I and many others (Renato included) continue to use and has oodles of image quality.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brev00

True, one can get wonderful images from any of the current dslrs available, but that's beside the point. When you start a system, the most relevant aspect is the paths that it opens for future development. Currently, if someone thinks heshe coukd develop either a deep commitment as an amateur or a pro career in photography, DX looks like a deadend, in many aspects. Canon is doing a little better, the 7D2 looks like a fine pro body, but Canon also lacks dedicated WA zooms and primes for APSC.

My comment is not actually about inferiority complex and envy, just that at each updating step one will keep checking the FF alternative, because DX offering is lacking in alternatives, that simple, and leaving DX will certainly involve finacial losses, something relevant for most.

--
Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/
Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)

this is actually a rather bleakly interesting scenario, Renato, because if DX is a deadend in semi/pro photography as Nikon apparently thinks, then those of us who shoot it in preference to either FX or u4/3 would best move down if we won't move up, as the only step-up lens support for DX will shortly be provided only be the 3rd-party manufacturers as Nikon in particular retreats to its traditional niche, the professional/serious amateur market.

Setting the AF performance limitations of the mirrorless cameras aside for the moment, we have a long-term problem if we are looking for continued support and new products in the u4/3 format: Oly and Panasonic together comprise less than 5% of the market, and they are shipping in the 100K units per year rather than the 1M units/year of CaNikon. Basically, pro/enthusiast camera equipment is a hobby business for everybody in the market except CaNikon, and they're shrinking by 8%/year. Any of those hobby manufacturers could disappear at any moment.

So what do we have NOW that could meet your criterion that a system camera has to have all of the options you might want completely within its system? Only these:

FX: Canon and Nikon. Sony thinks they'll get there in a couple of years, but they're bleeding money.

DX: Fuji. Arguably the best lensed DX option out there, but barely adequate. Samsung might get there in a few years if NX gains traction, but...

u4/3: Oly/Panasonic - Oly's PRO lens line is very impressive, but eliminates a lot of the claimed size/weight advantages. An EM-1 12-40 f/2.8 is essentially the same size as a D5500 17-70 f/4.

The solution? Last time buys on DX equipment or u4/3 ILC equipment. Get it now and make it last, or be resigned to carrying nothing more than an RX10/LX1000 on your travels. They're no slouches, but the camera market's middle is hollowing out rapidly.

 

[Paul Atkin]

You stated no factors that would say you need one or another camera. D750 is better than d7100. Will you see that 'better' in your pictures or not is a totally other question. If you intend to use a zoom it comes from nothing of that makes much difference.

See for yourself - a pro grade classic f2.8 24-70 zoom lens for full frame d750 costs $1200+. If you want best quality to justify d750 price you will need best glass. Consumer grade sigma f2.8 zoom for d7100 costs around $600 and has optical stabilization. I am quite sure a non-pro will not ever see what picture came from what camera anyway, if we talk here about generic 'travel' photography at f4-f8 apertures.

I would not use aps sensor camera for pro work and would not get full frame camera for travel or walk around shooting. Aps is smaller, cheaper and work same good.

 

[Shunda77]

I would keep my job (or try to get a usually well-paid job) in Computer Information Systems with biweekly paychecks and medical insurance benefits.

On the side, I would also start with the awesome Nikon D3300 with 18-55mm VR II lens (only about $500) for a year and stick to a rigorous 365 project. I would read, learn, shoot, experiment, explore and reshoot passionately -- not for money, but for solid skills.

I am being serious and helpful.

I don't know, why spend money on a DX body at this point? The D3x00 line is very limited for someone wanting to learn it seriously,

No, it is very limited for gadget freaks that like maximum buttons, bells and whistles. But for a budding photographer that wants the best image quality for the price, this camera is perfect for learning the craft.

like lack of dual wheels for manual exposure, MLU for many situations, and so on.

We all have a supercomputer in our head that manages to cope very well with the user interface of lower cost DX bodies.

 

[Shunda77]

I would keep my job (or try to get a usually well-paid job) in Computer Information Systems with biweekly paychecks and medical insurance benefits.

On the side, I would also start with the awesome Nikon D3300 with 18-55mm VR II lens (only about $500) for a year and stick to a rigorous 365 project. I would read, learn, shoot, experiment, explore and reshoot passionately -- not for money, but for solid skills.

I am being serious and helpful.

Couldn't agree more. The d3300 is great for starting out and the kit costs less than most FF lenses.

How is the D3300 great? Unless you are experienced photographer and are certain the D3300 has the features you need, it is actually more difficult to use in challenging situations than a full featured body.

Such as?

 

[Shunda77]

The D3300 is great because it's 95% the camera of a D7100

Arhhh... 95% - you ask me, I would say 25%.

Yeah, 25% of the cost, which one can invest in better glass and make the D3300 a BETTER camera than the D7100.

, yet costs 50% as much, and even includes a decent starter lens. I think it's poor advice to expect someone who thinks they want to get into photography the advice to run out and start buying a ton of expensive gear. Learn the basics with a D3x00, see if you even have a passion for it, and then move to something more expensive if you like it. In a year if the OP feels they have the passion and wants to pursue a career in photography they'll only be down $100 - $200. If they buy a D750 with the kit lens, initial cost will be $3000, and in a year or two if they don't like photography they'll be out probably $1000+ on resale. It's really a question of how committed the person is.

I really have to disagree. I started digital with the entry-level D60 - learned me nothing except that menu-diving was a pain. I had learned something from my film-cameras - most that controlling is a must, and that you need to learn to do it by your self. After that - you can use the auto.

Why do these film era photogs continually confuse their experience with that of the modern digital world that ALL beginner photographers are currently in? if you started on dials and knobs in the film era then fair enough, but that is a relic from the past now and no longer relevant.

It takes a decent hammer to learn to nail a spike decently. When learned you can use the heel of a shoe.

The most important part of a DSLR is the sensor, the D3300 is effectively the same "hammer" as the D7100.

 

[jimoyer]

The D3300 is great because it's 95% the camera of a D7100, yet costs 50% as much, and even includes a decent starter lens.

It most certainly is not 95% the camera of a D7100.

Yes, you can shoot in Auto, or the various Scene modes, or Aperture Priority, Shutter Priority or Manual BUT just because it has the same (or similar) sensor to the D7100 doesn't make it the same camera. For starters, the 24mp sensor is very sensitive to AF issues. The D7100 can be adjusted for that. The D3300 can not. If you have a problem with the D3300, it's back to Nikon you go.

At some point, the OP may want to try some professional glass, but as many find out, there is great glass out there to be had at great prices if you have an in body AF motor. That's about the time they realize that the D3300 or D5300 they were talked in to....because you don't need all the bells and whistles of a D7000, D7100, D750, etc..........doesn't have one. So you're spending anywhere from $1200-$24000 for a 70-200 2.8 to shoot the kids sports...whatever they may be....on that body you saved a few bucks on, instead of being about to buy an 80-200 2.8 for $400-$800.

I won't waste time going on and on, but the point is buy once, cry once. If you can afford a D7000, D7100, D750, whatever....buy it. You will never buy one and say "Gee, I wish I bought that D3300 instead", but you WILL very likely find yourself saying "I wish I just bought the D7100" when you buy the D3300.

A final thought....IF money is an issue, it's almost foolish to buy a D3300 these days with what you can get a D7000 for, or even a D7100 for.