Nikon D3100 - The best starter DSLR for the money?
Discussion
Im 19 and have always had a interest in photography, mainly because i love to take photos of cars.
My mom has a Lumix TZ7 which i love using and have managed to get some quite good photo graphs out of it, using the various Auto gettings.
Christmas is coming up and im thinking of asking for a Digital SLR.
Together me and the parents have been doing some research, buying a few magazines and looking for reviews on youtube and the like, and the Nikon D3100 seems to come out on top in the beginner SLR sector.
Its priced at around £400-500 depending on where you look, with the starter lens kit.
Does anyone have any personal experience with the camera, to agree or disagree with the reviews?
Or does anyone have any alternatives that i may have missed.
Id be putting half of the money or more towards the camera so the budget cant really stretch must past £450 if im honest.
Alex
My mom has a Lumix TZ7 which i love using and have managed to get some quite good photo graphs out of it, using the various Auto gettings.
Christmas is coming up and im thinking of asking for a Digital SLR.
Together me and the parents have been doing some research, buying a few magazines and looking for reviews on youtube and the like, and the Nikon D3100 seems to come out on top in the beginner SLR sector.
Its priced at around £400-500 depending on where you look, with the starter lens kit.
Does anyone have any personal experience with the camera, to agree or disagree with the reviews?
Or does anyone have any alternatives that i may have missed.
Id be putting half of the money or more towards the camera so the budget cant really stretch must past £450 if im honest.
Alex
Not a lot wrong with the D3100. I'm sure there are others out there from other manufacturers that are equally competent though so certainly worth trying them side by side and checking you like how they sit in your hands and that you can reach all the controls without stretching too much.
What subjects do you want to shoot? I only ask in case you need to consider another lens as well. The 18-55 lens is a nice general lens, works well for landscapes and people, not so good for wildlife. If you're really lucky, Jessops sometimes cobble together some decent bundles in January where you might get a telephoto (normally a Nikon 55-200 VR) as well as the kit lens.
What subjects do you want to shoot? I only ask in case you need to consider another lens as well. The 18-55 lens is a nice general lens, works well for landscapes and people, not so good for wildlife. If you're really lucky, Jessops sometimes cobble together some decent bundles in January where you might get a telephoto (normally a Nikon 55-200 VR) as well as the kit lens.
Have a feel of the cameras.
I had a feel of the D3100 and Canon 1100D. The Canon felt nicer to hold (despite the reviews saying it's placcy/mankie) and got on better with adjusting the setting etc.
In the end I bought a Pentax K-R with 18-55/50-200 lenses which is what I'd recommend over both IMO
Sony Alpha 35 is £400 now (was well over £500 when it was released a few months ago) which is definitely worth a look also.
TBH the best camera is the one which you get on with the best, much like test driving a car etc.
I had a feel of the D3100 and Canon 1100D. The Canon felt nicer to hold (despite the reviews saying it's placcy/mankie) and got on better with adjusting the setting etc.
In the end I bought a Pentax K-R with 18-55/50-200 lenses which is what I'd recommend over both IMO
Sony Alpha 35 is £400 now (was well over £500 when it was released a few months ago) which is definitely worth a look also.
TBH the best camera is the one which you get on with the best, much like test driving a car etc.
dSLRs are never "best for the money" on the simple basis that you'll never stop spending on something: tripod, flashgun, macro lens, filters, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera....
But!
The best one is the one you're going to use/carry around/work into an early grave and, generally, enjoy.
Brand aside, look at and handle your shortlisted models. See how they have been designed - e.g. my bias has been Nikon for the last 15 years, it's a number of small points from the way a Nikon body will hang from your fingertips when you pick it up and all the right (important to me) buttons are in the right place right through to how it balances when you stick a lens on it. Check how it feels and, unless you have a specific use in mind and particular lenses you want, allow yourself to go partly by heart,not just head!
But!
The best one is the one you're going to use/carry around/work into an early grave and, generally, enjoy.
Brand aside, look at and handle your shortlisted models. See how they have been designed - e.g. my bias has been Nikon for the last 15 years, it's a number of small points from the way a Nikon body will hang from your fingertips when you pick it up and all the right (important to me) buttons are in the right place right through to how it balances when you stick a lens on it. Check how it feels and, unless you have a specific use in mind and particular lenses you want, allow yourself to go partly by heart,not just head!
I bought a D3100 recently and I'm very happy with it and it is my first dSLR camera.
It was between the Cannon and Nikon for me and the salesman gave similar advice to that on here.
He said ignore the specs, as both will give great images. Pick both up, take a few pictures and buy the one that feels best in your hands.
It was between the Cannon and Nikon for me and the salesman gave similar advice to that on here.
He said ignore the specs, as both will give great images. Pick both up, take a few pictures and buy the one that feels best in your hands.
I have a Nikon D3100 as a direct replacement for my D40 that died - I like it, but I don't like the 18-55 as much as my 18-70, but that's a personal preference.
What is boils down to, however, is what YOU feel comfortable using - pick one up, play with it, see what you like - don't ONLY look at Nikon, look at the others and see what you feel comfortable using - Me, I have a Nikon, I love it, but I wouldn't say to you to ONLY look at Nikons.
I stand by what I posted here - http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a... - which may, or may not, help
What is boils down to, however, is what YOU feel comfortable using - pick one up, play with it, see what you like - don't ONLY look at Nikon, look at the others and see what you feel comfortable using - Me, I have a Nikon, I love it, but I wouldn't say to you to ONLY look at Nikons.
I stand by what I posted here - http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a... - which may, or may not, help
Other post of JTWs said:
I have one now too - aquired after my beloved D40 died.
First impressions are how good a little camera it is for the money and how much more it offers over the D40 and how close it is to a D90 (IMO). Having only been able to do ISO800 at best on the D40 (ISO1600 was pretty poor) the D3100 will do ISO3200 pretty well (6400 and 12800 are very noisy as I expected) - Video recording is pretty good, but I'm not sure how much I'll use it either.
The 18-55 VR kit lens is ok, but not a patch on my 18-70 so it's only been on once to make sure it works and will be sold in fairly short order.
Going from a D40 to this has been really simple as it's a very similar camera, lightweight and so easy to use - my OH is rather pleased that you can use the screen as a viewfinder as she always hated using the viewfinder.
I've not taken any photos with it yet (apart from of furniture while I played with it) but my initial view is that if I'd paid full whack for it, Id still be happy - but as a "freebie", I'm over the moon
First impressions are how good a little camera it is for the money and how much more it offers over the D40 and how close it is to a D90 (IMO). Having only been able to do ISO800 at best on the D40 (ISO1600 was pretty poor) the D3100 will do ISO3200 pretty well (6400 and 12800 are very noisy as I expected) - Video recording is pretty good, but I'm not sure how much I'll use it either.
The 18-55 VR kit lens is ok, but not a patch on my 18-70 so it's only been on once to make sure it works and will be sold in fairly short order.
Going from a D40 to this has been really simple as it's a very similar camera, lightweight and so easy to use - my OH is rather pleased that you can use the screen as a viewfinder as she always hated using the viewfinder.
I've not taken any photos with it yet (apart from of furniture while I played with it) but my initial view is that if I'd paid full whack for it, Id still be happy - but as a "freebie", I'm over the moon
Another JTW post a week later said:
I was toying with the idea of getting a D3000 a while back to replace my D40, last month the D40 died and I was given a D3100 which, having read up on it, is streets ahead of the D3000 while being similar in looks.
I can say that I would have regretted buying a D3000 having seen and used a D3100 as the extra £50 would be well spent on it.
This webiste, while not being the be-all and end-all of reviews, gives a good "high level" view of the differences:
http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon_D3000-vs-Nikon_D...
So, in short, D3000 - if you HAVE to, then do, if you can stretch to a D3100, do that.
But that's my opinion...
ETA:
The motor in lens issue isn't, in my view, that big a deal, no you can't quickly use any other Nikon lens in auto mode, but you can in manual mode and you can still adjust the aperture automatically.
It's a good, inexpensive, camera - no it's not as cheap as the D40 was (which still surprisingly holds it value really well), but for the money, I think it's worth it.
It's easy to use and easy to learn - I haven't used mine in "anger" yet, but pointy/clicky photos come out very well - my OH can use it and she likes that you can use the screen on the back as she's not such a fan of the viewfinder.
Low light is a huge improvement on the D40, which was, I'll be honest, rubbish - I've played with low light photos and "noise" at high ISOs is not that horrendous.
I have tried out the kit lens (18-55) and it's a good basic lens and gets great reviews by Ken Rockwell, but I find it slow and it "hunts" a bit too much for my liking - I have the older, better and significantly quicker 18-70.
If you get one, get an off camera flash - the on board one is ok, but I will never use it as it's just a bright light that ruins all my photos.
As above, the AF-S lens WILL work on any other Nikon DSLR, so if you ever get a higher model, you can simply port your lenses over - they can be slightly more expensive, but not cripplingly so. I find that it brings the weight of the camera down a LOT:
The D40 was a light camera, the D3100 is also light - put on a prime lens and suddenly the camera weighs nothing. Put on a big lens and the camera is still very easy to carry.
Continuous shooting isn't the fastest, but it's still pretty good - if you're doing that, why not shoot a video?
So, the D3100 is, in my view, a good entry level camera.
I can not, however, comment on how it compares to a Canon or Sony or any other model as I've not used one - What often happens is that you buy a certain model and you decide that that is the best model. Ever. Well, sometimes
Note that that last post was as a comparison to a D3000I can say that I would have regretted buying a D3000 having seen and used a D3100 as the extra £50 would be well spent on it.
This webiste, while not being the be-all and end-all of reviews, gives a good "high level" view of the differences:
http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon_D3000-vs-Nikon_D...
So, in short, D3000 - if you HAVE to, then do, if you can stretch to a D3100, do that.
But that's my opinion...
ETA:
The motor in lens issue isn't, in my view, that big a deal, no you can't quickly use any other Nikon lens in auto mode, but you can in manual mode and you can still adjust the aperture automatically.
It's a good, inexpensive, camera - no it's not as cheap as the D40 was (which still surprisingly holds it value really well), but for the money, I think it's worth it.
It's easy to use and easy to learn - I haven't used mine in "anger" yet, but pointy/clicky photos come out very well - my OH can use it and she likes that you can use the screen on the back as she's not such a fan of the viewfinder.
Low light is a huge improvement on the D40, which was, I'll be honest, rubbish - I've played with low light photos and "noise" at high ISOs is not that horrendous.
I have tried out the kit lens (18-55) and it's a good basic lens and gets great reviews by Ken Rockwell, but I find it slow and it "hunts" a bit too much for my liking - I have the older, better and significantly quicker 18-70.
If you get one, get an off camera flash - the on board one is ok, but I will never use it as it's just a bright light that ruins all my photos.
As above, the AF-S lens WILL work on any other Nikon DSLR, so if you ever get a higher model, you can simply port your lenses over - they can be slightly more expensive, but not cripplingly so. I find that it brings the weight of the camera down a LOT:
The D40 was a light camera, the D3100 is also light - put on a prime lens and suddenly the camera weighs nothing. Put on a big lens and the camera is still very easy to carry.
Continuous shooting isn't the fastest, but it's still pretty good - if you're doing that, why not shoot a video?
So, the D3100 is, in my view, a good entry level camera.
I can not, however, comment on how it compares to a Canon or Sony or any other model as I've not used one - What often happens is that you buy a certain model and you decide that that is the best model. Ever. Well, sometimes
I was in this scenario a couple of months back and in the end went for the Canon 1100D.
At that price range there will be very little difference in the performance of the bodies, get yourself into a shop and have a play with the various entry level models and see which you feel happier using. I went for the Canon based on this and the fact that I have a couple of mates also using Canon gear so I can borrow their lenses!
At that price range there will be very little difference in the performance of the bodies, get yourself into a shop and have a play with the various entry level models and see which you feel happier using. I went for the Canon based on this and the fact that I have a couple of mates also using Canon gear so I can borrow their lenses!
Irrotational said:
Would you consider second hand? you can pick up some higher spec models on Ebay for the same money?
I was thinking the same thing, but it didn't seem to be the case when I was looking for a camera in the same price range. For around the same money as a 1100D you might be able to get a 40D.... However asides from a self-cleaning sensor (something the K-R/D3100/A35 have), and 6fps (same as K-R/A35) vs 3fps there doesn't appear to much to recommend over the newer model (ready to be proved wrong). 1100D also has benefits over a 40D such as being able to take movies. Picture quality appeared to be identical (dpreview), if anything the 1100D had the edge on low-light/high ISO performance.
That said I'm sure there are bargains out there if you try hard enough, but IMO life is too short
MarkRSi said:
For around the same money as a 1100D you might be able to get a 40D.... However asides from a self-cleaning sensor (something the K-R/D3100/A35 have), and 6fps (same as K-R/A35) vs 3fps there doesn't appear to much to recommend over the newer model
Your ignoring the most important aspects, ergonomics and viewfinder.. (and a much better af system)RobDickinson said:
ergonomics
Subjective RobDickinson said:
viewfinder..
Pentaprism right? Supposedly brighter but I've never looked through one so have no idea how difference it makes compared to a pentamirror...RobDickinson said:
(and a much better af system)
Both have 9 AF points, so about the same, non?I went around a few places today in my area, and all had sold out of the D3100, although a did have a feel of the D5100, which for slightly more (closing down sale in best buy) seems like a great camera.
I'll take the advice of just having a play with some rather than just looking at specs.
Its hard for me however to know if the buttons feel in the right place, because, id be learning them for the first time anyway.
I'll take the advice of just having a play with some rather than just looking at specs.
Its hard for me however to know if the buttons feel in the right place, because, id be learning them for the first time anyway.
MarkRSi said:
RobDickinson said:
ergonomics
Subjective RobDickinson said:
viewfinder..
Pentaprism right? Supposedly brighter but I've never looked through one so have no idea how difference it makes compared to a pentamirror...RobDickinson said:
(and a much better af system)
Both have 9 AF points, so about the same, non?Same with the AF systems. Things move on over time of course as technology trickle through the ranges but it's not just the number of AF points that matter. Rather it is the ability of those points, when pushed to their working limits, that makes the biggest difference.
Of course all of that may or may not be a big thing for the photographer behind the lens. For example it could be argued that if you primarily shoot long distance wide angle Landscapes AF performance is probably not too important to you. Shoot action material and it is.
Nevertheless the lower end products available in the market today are extremely capable cameras by any historical measure. When starting out pretty much anything one buys will almost certainly give very satisfying results and continue to do so even though one might eventually choose to upgrade once one knows more about what one wants from the setup.
Edited by LongQ on Saturday 10th December 23:01
GTIAlex06 said:
Nexts years events i plan to capture are
Goodwood
Horses, FoS, Revival or some combination?Goodwood
I'm thinking lenses here.
It sounds like a standard kit lens, reasonable tele-zoom and maybe a wide angle would be good to have - but may not fit into the budget.
Do you have a birthday at some point that cold be used to top up the kit bag?
MarkRSi said:
So basically it's just a case of whatever feels better and suits your needs?
In which case I 100% agree
Providing you understand your needs and how they may be supported (or otherwise) by the technology on offer in each body ... then yes. Sometimes the results are a surprise. In which case I 100% agree
LongQ said:
GTIAlex06 said:
Nexts years events i plan to capture are
Goodwood
Horses, FoS, Revival or some combination?Goodwood
I'm thinking lenses here.
It sounds like a standard kit lens, reasonable tele-zoom and maybe a wide angle would be good to have - but may not fit into the budget.
Do you have a birthday at some point that cold be used to top up the kit bag?
Yeah its in February which could be pretty handy
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff