DSLR Options

boliston

harshitguptaiitr wrote: »

Thanks! Although at the moment, I am looking for a new DSLR camera.

If buying from pc world just watch out for canon "deals" that involve selling an "old" kit lens without image stabilisation ("IS") as my OH almost fell for this last year - I think they are hoping people will not notice and think it's a great deal!

Hoogle

Ok choice is yours to be honest I have nikon for my landscape pictures and i use cannon for portraits.

To be fair if your looking at post processing images and shooting in raw format then neither really matters in terms of what you use. but many will disagree I am sure but I find cannon give a warmer softer look in portraits and nikon tend to be more as your eyes would see it. But that said both can be adjusted to the exact same outcome in something like lightroom (assuming you are using a like for like lens)

System

harshitguptaiitr wrote: »

I am looking to purchase a DSLR - currently using point and shoot camera and smartphone.

Not looking to spend more than £450
Not looking to upgrade camera body in next 3-4 years.

Currently considering either of these two options, but looking for recommendations as well as moneysaving tricks while making purchase:

CANON EOS 1300D DSLR Camera with 18-55 mm f/3.5-5.6 Lens - Black (£296)

NIKON D3400 DSLR Camera with 18-55 mm f/3.5-5.6 Lens - Black (£330)

Both are good for budget cameras and is just a case of flipping a coin and go for it.

Once you have the camera and are shooting with it you then can decide how far you want to take your photography skills/journey. This could entail buying lenses, photo editing software and possible flashes, lighting gear etc etc...

Jackmydad

TBH, you'd be as well off getting something like the Sony RX100. It doesn't look as professional, but basically it is.
It's not (mainly) the camera that gets the results. It's the lighting, and the skill of the photographer.

Geodark

Jackmydad wrote: »

TBH, you'd be as well off getting something like the Sony RX100. It doesn't look as professional, but basically it is.
It's not (mainly) the camera that gets the results. It's the lighting, and the skill of the photographer.

But the RX100 isn't a dslr and it isnt just the camera that makes the difference, its also the bits of glass you stick on the front of it. the advantage of dslr is the ability to change the lenses to suite your situation.

As for the OP, I have a canon 700d and I absolutely love it. I *think* you can get the body and a lens for around £400 now.

ukcarper

They would both be OK but if you can pick them up and play with them I would as how they feel in your hands is important.

wongataa

harshitguptaiitr wrote: »

Currently considering either of these two options, but looking for recommendations as well as moneysaving tricks while making purchase:

CANON EOS 1300D DSLR Camera with 18-55 mm f/3.5-5.6 Lens - Black (£296)

NIKON D3400 DSLR Camera with 18-55 mm f/3.5-5.6 Lens - Black (£330)

They will both be perfectly good cameras. Go and hold them in your hands in a shop. You may well prefer how one of them fits your hands. The one you prefer holding should be the one to buy.

Honey_Badger

harshitguptaiitr wrote: »

I am looking to purchase a DSLR - currently using point and shoot camera and smartphone.

Not looking to spend more than £450
Not looking to upgrade camera body in next 3-4 years.

Currently considering either of these two options, but looking for recommendations as well as moneysaving tricks while making purchase:

CANON EOS 1300D DSLR Camera with 18-55 mm f/3.5-5.6 Lens - Black (£296)

NIKON D3400 DSLR Camera with 18-55 mm f/3.5-5.6 Lens - Black (£330)

You might find this review from DPReview useful

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/2017-buying-guide-best-cameras-under-500

The site is based in the US so in the review the 1300D is referred to as the Rebel T6.

It sounds like you'll want to use out of camera jpegs at least to begin with. In which case I'd look at sites like Flickr to see photographs from both cameras, colour are reproduced differently by different cameras. To my eye for instance I prefer the colours from the Canon camera.

The other thing to consider is not just the feel of the camera in the hand, but do consider how you're going to carry it and if you are happy to do that all day.

Jackmydad

Geodark wrote: »

But the RX100 isn't a dslr and it isnt just the camera that makes the difference, its also the bits of glass you stick on the front of it. the advantage of dslr is the ability to change the lenses to suite your situation.

As for the OP, I have a canon 700d and I absolutely love it. I *think* you can get the body and a lens for around £400 now.

The Zeiss "bits of glass" in the RX100 are better than the ones in the kit lenses in either of the DSLRs. Good wide angle.
You're going to pay more than the price of the whole kit for any decent glass. Although to be fair neither of the kit lenses were too bad the last time I looked.
Changing lenses is a very useful feature yes. But if you have a lens on the camera, which goes from a reasonably "wide" focal length with a "zoom" to a focal length that's OK for portraits, somewhere around 100mm (35mm equivalent), then unless you are doing something specialist like nature, in general you can just walk closer to the subject.
I've made a fair bit of my living in the last few years selling photographs online. I've got a Pentax K-5, which is a bit long in the tooth now, and quite a few lenses. The one that's on there most of the time is a Tamron 28-75 F2.8. Put a real wide angle in the bag along with a few other bits and pieces, and you already have a weight to lug about.
I also have an RX100. I can stick it in my pocket.
The DSLR images are better quality, but you can process them to make very, very little real difference at 100% magnification.
So yes, I know the RX100 isn't a DSLR, but my point is that it's worth thinking of the alternatives.
I've heard of too many DSLRs that have ended up stuck in the back of a drawer, because they are "too much trouble to lug about" and "don't give the expected results".

ukcarper

Jackmydad wrote: »

The Zeiss "bits of glass" in the RX100 are better than the ones in the kit lenses in either of the DSLRs. Good wide angle.
You're going to pay more than the price of the whole kit for any decent glass. Although to be fair neither of the kit lenses were too bad the last time I looked.
Changing lenses is a very useful feature yes. But if you have a lens on the camera, which goes from a reasonably "wide" focal length with a "zoom" to a focal length that's OK for portraits, somewhere around 100mm (35mm equivalent), then unless you are doing something specialist like nature, in general you can just walk closer to the subject.
I've made a fair bit of my living in the last few years selling photographs online. I've got a Pentax K-5, which is a bit long in the tooth now, and quite a few lenses. The one that's on there most of the time is a Tamron 28-75 F2.8. Put a real wide angle in the bag along with a few other bits and pieces, and you already have a weight to lug about.
I also have an RX100. I can stick it in my pocket.
The DSLR images are better quality, but you can process them to make very, very little real difference at 100% magnification.
So yes, I know the RX100 isn't a DSLR, but my point is that it's worth thinking of the alternatives.
I've heard of too many DSLRs that have ended up stuck in the back of a drawer, because they are "too much trouble to lug about" and "don't give the expected results".

Must admit I recently bought a Panasonic tz100 as I was finding carting DSLR around a pain, I had replaced the kit lens on DSLR with a better lens which was much heavier. Still prefer using DSLR but tend to use Panasonic most of the time because it is much smaller and lighter and the results are very good.