Howard, unfortunately, buying even a mediocre extra wide lens for any camera will usually set you back over $300 if you want new. I think Canon has a pretty good one for right at $300 with their 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 STM model. $300 - $500 is extremely cheap for a decent lens. Very inexpensive. I went what I consider cheap with my Nikon 16-35 f/4 and it cost me over $1100. That's cheap as good lenses go. 16-35 on FX is similar to a 10-20 on a DX camera.
I completely agree with Bjorn. You might have paid for those supposedly professional shot, but they weren't of any professional standard I've ever seen. IMO, they were poor level snapshots taken with older cheap entry level equipment. Nothing wrong with that gear if used properly by someone with even a tiny bit of skill, but in this case, there seems to have been no skill.
Hey Bjorn and Guidenet,I completely agree with Bjorn. You might have paid for those supposedly professional shot, but they weren't of any professional standard I've ever seen. IMO, they were poor level snapshots taken with older cheap entry level equipment. Nothing wrong with that gear if used properly by someone with even a tiny bit of skill, but in this case, there seems to have been no skill.
Besides, most true professionals use professional level equipment. They have to in order the gear hold up to everyday abuses and also provide good tactile controls for ease of use. Not because pro level gear takes a better image.
Any of these images you've shown could be taken with a D3100 and kit lens providing you learned how to use them better than those so called professionals. That wouldn't be very hard. Just add a good flash like an SB500 or SB700 to the mix so you can swivel and bounce it for fill light and I think you'll far exceed those images.
If you again hire a professional, take a good look at their portfolio first and make sure you're getting a real estate photographer. Take the time to look at this web page and maybe the video to see what a professional's image might look like.
https://fstoppers.com/product/mike-kelley-where-art-meets-architecture
Good luck and have fun.
--
Cheers, Craig
Follow me on Twitter @craighardingsr : Equipment in Profile - f/22 Club Member
I reserve the right to make mistakes in reasoning and logic as well as to change my mind anytime I wish. I also ask forbearance with respect to my typos. Please take a look at my gallery here at DPR.
Tough call. The RX100 has been a very successful pocket camera, and it's 1-inch sensor is all that is needed for most hobby purposes, or even posting commercial shots to the Web. As an old hand with 35mm cameras I'm attracted to the retro vibe of the design for the Fuji cameras. At least in the USA market these come with a 16-50mm kit lens. The 16 end is a 24mm effective field width, a modest improvement over the usual 18-55 for WA purposes. "Modest" being the key word, not a huge deal. With a different "pancake" prime lens the X-A/M1 can also be a nice fit for street photography. The Nikon DSLR does open up the doors to a much bigger selection of accessories, should you end up going nuts with this. So, again, tough call.
Great. That's way less than my 10-24 and plenty wide for interiors.
An older camera model, for the same feature level, is always less expensive. The D3300 certainly will work properly, just leave a little bigger hole in your wallet.
As Kelly said, the D3300 would do fine. Just trying to save you money. The skill is provided by the nut behind the viewfinder, not the gear. ;-)
Go half way w/ the D3200 then?
Personally, I doubt there is any real difference in image quality, just who's taking the shot and how they might have processed it. A halfway decent photographer can make either camera look better than the other. Maybe later when Howard dives into the intricacies of quality RAW processing, the newer model may have a slight bit more headroom. I don't know. Maybe.
Great choice. My sister loves hers.
