Nikon D5100 or Nikon D3300?

Planning to buy dslr said:

Well I'm planning to buy my first DSLR. Though many people are suggesting D5100, but I'm kinda leaned towards the D3300? Please suggest.

Also suggest me some cheap lenses. I Don't wanna be a photographer. Just for casual indoor us

Click to expand...

If your primary use is "casual", why do you want a DSLR?

Tedolph

I need DSLR for some personal uses like marriage festivals, get togethers, family use.

Don't get me wrong.

a dslr with the kit lens isn't going to be a very all purpose camera. it won't be great in low light, it won't capture far away things and the quality, while better than most point and shoots, isn't going to be great. and the things that help one get better pics using any enthusiast cameras have a learning curve, like getting non-blurry pics in lower light by using a faster shutter speed.

why not get a bridge camera instead? some have lenses that are good in low light and have more reach than a dslr and kit lens. also some will have faster burst mode, if that's something that interests you.

Yeah I understand. But I'll be going for DSLRs only. SO could you help me to chose the right one?

Planning to buy dslr said:

Yeah I understand. But I'll be going for DSLRs only. SO could you help me to chose the right one?

Click to expand...

Patticake gave you some good advice.

You should consider it before you dismiss it.

Making a DSLR into an "all purpose" camera is usually a $2,000.00 proposition.

If you are willing to make that investment, fine.

If not a high quality bridge camera makes a lot of sense.

TEdolph

If you are asking the difference between the D5100 and the D3300, read the DPReviews. In general terms, the only differences between cameras is going to be features. As example, I don't believe the D3300 offers bracketing. While the D5100 offers the basic 3-frame bracketing. Now maybe bracketing doesn't mean anything to you. But that is an example of the differences between cameras. Now this comparison is rather complicated as the D300 is newer technology that the older 5100. This means that the sensor might be up to one-stop better in low light (the ability to use a higher ISO). However, I might think that this is offset by such a high megapixel count. High megapixels tend to reveal any flaws in a photographers technique, which might not be a good thing for casual use.

Beyond that, you must understand that the only thing a camera does, any camera, is record an exposure. A camera records light. Period. My light meter will tell me the value of the light falling on a subject. These parameters (ISO, Shutter speed and Aperture value) will be the SAME on any camera because that is the light. There isn't one camera that can record the light "better" than another camera. A camera cannot control the quality, direction, color, intensity or subsequent contrast of your light. It only records it. The camera lens will play a MUCH bigger role than the camera. As example, the 18-55mm kit lens allows for an aperture of f/5.6 at 55mm. The 50mm f/1.8 prime allows for over 8 times more light to be captured. But it doesn't zoom! Photography is always a compromise. This is some believe a mirrorless camera might be a better option: at least the lenses will be cheaper and the lens is more important than the camera.

Some people think that they know better what you need. Sometimes it is true but it is your money so you spend them as you like.

D3300 is a basic body with very few controls and few settings to tweak. This is both good and bad. It is good that iit gives you less means to screw the settings. When you go over basic usage it may be bad because it cannot change anything that is not available in the settings.

One example is the behavior in AF-C mode (if you want to take a photo even if focus lock has not occured you can't do it because it has a focus priority already set by the manufacturer).

Nikon D3300 has 24 M and conceals a little better the noise.

OTOH Nikon D5100 is at the bottom of the price and has a very good sensor with good DR and very good high ISO.

If two were at the same price I would choose D5100. Your choice may be different so go with your heart.


Dynamic Range




ISO 6400



--
Victor
Bucuresti, Romania

High ISO is almost identical between the two. Nikon D3300 has less than 0.1 stops better high ISO. OTOH any flaw of lens and technique is more obvious on Nikon D3300 if you pixel peep. If you print the same size they will be indistinguishable.

baloo_buc said:

High ISO is almost identical between the two. Nikon D3300 has less than 0.1 stops better high ISO. OTOH any flaw of lens and technique is more obvious on Nikon D3300 if you pixel peep. If you print the same size they will be indistinguishable.

Click to expand...

In my experience, the higher the megapixels, the faster the shutter speed needs to be when hand holding the camera.

This is true. If you print A4 (20x30 cm or 8x12") both photos taken at reasonable shutter speed (i.e. not heavy blur of more than 10 pixels) your eyes cannot distinguish the blur. If you look from 30 cm on a screen at 100% you will see it immediately.

So for heavy crops or very large prints technique is very important.

I had the same issue while going from 6 to 12 MP.

I'd go for the D3300 with a tamron 17-50 f2.8 as a starting point. The new processor in the D3300 gets you very good high ISO results without the banding.

I use the 50mm f1.8G with mine. Great for low light portraits.

this is JPEG iso 12800 sooc to give you an idea . No it's not perfect but usable upto A4 all the same.





--
new to technology,always learning