Nikon D3500 vs Coolpix P950
Discussion
Currently have a D3500 with a 2nd hand Nikon 70-300 f4.5-5.6 lens bought a couple of years ago for about £200. Purely for casual use, days out at zoo's, wildlife parks, etc. I'm happy with the results, does a good job and any noticeable improvements would first need to come from the user rather than any upgrade 
However, Mrs ZS does a fair amount of painting and would like to start taking more of her own reference photos. It would be a mixture of landscapes, pets and wildlife. I'm more than happy for her to use my camera but she likes the idea of the P950, a few other artists she knows use them and have recommended it.
Just wondered what the main advantages/disadvantages between the two are?
However, Mrs ZS does a fair amount of painting and would like to start taking more of her own reference photos. It would be a mixture of landscapes, pets and wildlife. I'm more than happy for her to use my camera but she likes the idea of the P950, a few other artists she knows use them and have recommended it.
Just wondered what the main advantages/disadvantages between the two are?
Zetec-S said:
Just wondered what the main advantages/disadvantages between the two are?
One's a DSLR, the other isn't. This is the technical comparison: https://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-...Either camera will be perfectly capable of the task; what does she like about the P950 over the D3500? (apart from other artists having them)
Plus, keep in mind that the lens on either has the propensity to distort the scene - which is fine for photography but less so when using the image as a reference for painting.
Around 70mm on a crop sensor (50mm on a full frame) is roughly equivalent to the human eye. Anything above that will compress the field of view which might not be optimal for artwork - unless that's the style she's going for.
Both are good cameras but do the same job, just in slightly different ways. I don't think there's even much difference in size and weight.
Around 70mm on a crop sensor (50mm on a full frame) is roughly equivalent to the human eye. Anything above that will compress the field of view which might not be optimal for artwork - unless that's the style she's going for.
Both are good cameras but do the same job, just in slightly different ways. I don't think there's even much difference in size and weight.
Thanks for the responses. I think a big part of liking the P950 is not having to faff around with lenses which will ultimately guide her decision, and from what I can gather it's very much six of one, half a dozen of the other, and if it's what she has decided on I don't intend to try and change her mind. Just wanted to get some other opinions.
Appreciate the note about lens compression, not something I'm too knowledgeable on but I don't think that will have a bit affect on her painting. But that's my weekend's reading sorted
Appreciate the note about lens compression, not something I'm too knowledgeable on but I don't think that will have a bit affect on her painting. But that's my weekend's reading sorted
I used a bridge camera for years when taking photos for a magazine. I also had a 35mm SLR film camera and a little digital compact.
There was no competition with regards convenience. It excelled at candid shots and in circumstances where I was taking dozens of images, such as in a group or on a couple of visits to museums. I was in the pits a few times, and it was just the camera for melting into the background and avoiding carrying a camera bag.
The 35mm was the one I used where I could predict what I wanted and where it would be. I often used a tripod.
In other words, it's horses for courses.
I've been married for 54 years and one of the essentials is to know when to use personal knowledge to lead your wife towards a particular purchase, and away from something she thinks would be perfect. That time is never.
There was no competition with regards convenience. It excelled at candid shots and in circumstances where I was taking dozens of images, such as in a group or on a couple of visits to museums. I was in the pits a few times, and it was just the camera for melting into the background and avoiding carrying a camera bag.
The 35mm was the one I used where I could predict what I wanted and where it would be. I often used a tripod.
In other words, it's horses for courses.
I've been married for 54 years and one of the essentials is to know when to use personal knowledge to lead your wife towards a particular purchase, and away from something she thinks would be perfect. That time is never.
Just a follow up question, rather than starting a new thread. There’s quite a big variation in prices- obviously going direct to Nikon adds a big premium, but after that most places have the P950 for around £650, but a few places have it for under £600.
They look genuine but puzzled why it would be so much cheaper? Any thoughts?
They look genuine but puzzled why it would be so much cheaper? Any thoughts?
Zetec-S said:
Just a follow up question, rather than starting a new thread. There’s quite a big variation in prices- obviously going direct to Nikon adds a big premium, but after that most places have the P950 for around £650, but a few places have it for under £600.
They look genuine but puzzled why it would be so much cheaper? Any thoughts?
Grey import perhaps.They look genuine but puzzled why it would be so much cheaper? Any thoughts?
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff