Nikon D3300 is $499 - how can mirrorless compete?

Started Jan 7, 2014 | Discussions thread
sean000 Veteran Member • Posts: 7,356
Re: 46 AF-S lenses...

rhlpetrus wrote:

It's an entry-level camera, I doubt anyone with lots of non-AFS lenses would get one.

My point wsa that people buying the D3300 might find their options limited. It's probably their first DSLR and they want to expand their lens collection. The cheapest way to do that is to buy used lenses, and many of those used lenses are going to be AF-D. I watch our local Craigslist for camera gear, and I see Nikon 50mm f/1.8D primes for $65 and 35mm f/2.0D for $150. I looked into selling my 80-200mm f/2.8D (planning to purchase the 35-100mm f/2.8) and the going rate for a used one seems to be about $600. The older third-party lenses, like the excellent Tokina 12-24mm f/4, are also screwdriven.

I have actually considered getting one of these entry level Nikons to use as a landscape camera (the sensor is excellent after all) since manually focusing my screwdriven lenses won't be a huge deal for that type of photography. I'd be better off with a D7000/D7100 as an upgrade to my D200, but I'm more likely to just sell the rest of my Nikon gear. Maybe I'm just bitter that nobody wants my old screwdriven lenses because so many are shooting with these entry level Nikon bodies

The arguments here are very confusing, to say the least, on both sides. Why comapre the D3300 to the EM1? Why these eternal systems' wars? Photographers just use what's best for them, be it a compact P&S or a full-fledged dslr or an MF system, depending on budget and interests.

I think the people who make these arguments are either trolling or they are very inexperienced photographers who really aren't sure what they want or need in a camera system. Given the gear the OP owns, I'd say he is trolling. Most of us have enough experience, and have owned enough camera gear, to know that you really can't compare a D3300 to an EM1. I have a hard time understanding why someone would even compare a D3300 to an entry level m4/3 camera. The systems are so different in many ways... size and weight being the most obvious (although the inexperienced will compare on the weight of the body and kit zoom and think the difference is no so great). There are different lenses available at different sizes, weights, and price points; differences in features (including the OVF vs EVF... I'll take my E-M5's EVF over the small OVF of a D3300 class body any day); differences in depth of field (the greater depth of field of m4/3 would actually be easier for a novice to manage), etc.

People need to remember that these are camera systems and not individual cameras. If you really do not know what you want in a camera system, then you may just have to find out by trying something. A kit like the Nikon D3300 is of course a safe bet, but I see people purchase cameras like this all the time and then leave them at home most of the time. That's perfectly fine if they plan to use them at home, or only at special events. Others will place a higher value on portability, which is what led me from a Nikon D200 to m4/3. I used to be perfectly fine carrying around a camera bag with a D200 and f/2.8 Nikon zooms, but then I had kids and my needs completely changed.

I have been very happy with my Nikon gear in the past, and I like to see Nikon do well. I also like to see Olympus and Panasonic do well. There is no written rule that says there can't be room for multiple manufacturers and multiple camera system formats in the market.


 sean000's gear list:sean000's gear list
Olympus Stylus XZ-10 Nikon D70 Nikon D200 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 +14 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow