Maybe you don't need an expensive camera either

[Old Listener]

Is this a good camera @ a good price:
• https://www.bestbuy.com/site/nikon-...0mm-g-ed-lenses-black/5580131.p?skuId=5580131

I need one for Friday.
• https://www.amazon.com/Nikon-18-55mm-3-5-5-6G-70-300mm-4-5-6-3G/dp/B01KITZRBE

Depends on what you want to do with it. Tell us what uses are important enough to you to warrant buying a DSLR.

Any modern DSLR or mirrorless camera with lenses like the ones in the kit you want can take good pictures of things in daylight which are not too close (wildflowers and insects) , not too far away (birds and other wildlife) and not moving too fast. Differences between those cameras (and lenses) matter for pictures in low light, for photos with lots of dynamic range and for photos of things moving fast (sports and auto racing.)

Nikon has been putting out new models of the D3x00 and D5x00 cameras with no real improvements for several iterations. The models with a 24 Mpixel sensor perform about the same with respect to dynamic range, low light performance and noise level. The older models are often available (new) at much lower prices than the latest models. As a company, Nikon is facing a diminishing future. It is preserving profitability at the expense of significant loss of market share. The camera market as a whole grew in 2017 while Nikon's sales shrank. Nikon won't disappear next year but they haven't been doing much to address their long term problem.

I'd check for an equivalent camera body + 2 kit lenses package from Canon if you want a DSLR.

You aren't giving yourself much time to learn to use your camera by Friday.

 

[amirm]

BTW, one option is to get a cell phone with a good camera if you want something simple. The user interface and usability is far better than any DSLR or mirrorless camera. They are no good in low light but otherwise the image quality has advanced so much. It is so good that I don't pull out my DSLR for some of the images you see such as my recent teardown of Schiit Modi 2. So much easier to just use my phone, take pictures and email them to my computer than messing with any DSLR. I am especially impressed with close focusing of my Samsung S8+ camera allowing me to take pretty nice closeups.

 

[NorthSky]

Yes, but a good camera phone is twice as expensive as the DSLR I just showed...the Nikon with two lenses.
Today DSLR, some of them costs much less, twice as much, than a top notch camera phone.

And a good DSLR Canon with two lenses won't be say less than a thousand bucks, correct?

Or, show me the best bang for the buck on Canon cameras with two lenses...for between say $500 and $1,500 (normally retailing for twice as much...$1,000 to $3,000).

Friday is Black Friday, and it's a good time to get a new camera...a DSLR one.
My use is simple...nature artistic pictures of high quality, people, wildlife, architecture.
I'm not shooting videos, no sports, no nothing moving except the wings flapping of a mid air eagle, hawk and howl and hummingbird and a Canadian loonie.

 

[amirm]

Wildlife requires expensive lenses Bob. The smallest lens for that application will dry up your $1,000 budget. Now, if you don't want them close up then we can talk. Otherwise, that application is out of reach.

 

[Old Listener]

Yes, but a good camera phone is twice as expensive a the DSLR I just showed...the Nikon with two lenses.
Today DSLR, some of them costs much less, twice as much, than a top notch camera phone.

And a good DSLR Canon with two lenses won't be say less than a thousand bucks, correct?

I bought a smartphone for ~ $ 200 in 2015. The camera takes smart pictures with vivid color. It has the usual limits of a camera with a tiny sensor but within those limits, it is quite useful. Some examples:

passion flower

morning glory

Ex-Mayor Bob Simmons with Open Space rangers

I'm sure that there are other newer smartphones at the ~$200 price level that deliver comparable results to my ASUS Zenfone.

 

[Old Listener]

Yes, but a good camera phone is twice as expensive a the DSLR I just showed...the Nikon with two lenses.
Today DSLR, some of them costs much less, twice as much, than a top notch camera phone.

And a good DSLR Canon with two lenses won't be say less than a thousand bucks, correct?

Or, show me the best bang for the buck on Canon cameras with two lenses...for between say $500 and $1,500 (normally retailing for twice as much...$1,000 to $3,000).

Friday is Black Friday, and it's a good time to get a new camera...a DSLR one.
My use is simple...nature artistic pictures of high quality, people, wildlife, architecture.
I'm not shooting videos, no sports, no nothing moving except the wings flapping of a mid air eagle, hawk and howl and hummingbird and a Canadian loonie.

You clearly do not understand what's required for wildlife photography, especially birds in flight. It demands more of the camera and lens and of the photographer.

The Nikon kit you liked includes a 70-300mm lens. I used a Nikon body with a earlier 70-300mm lens on a pontoon boat cruise around Elkhorn Slough. That boat got us much closer to wildlife than I could have gotten on foot. I got good pictures on that outing but most of the time, that lens was too short. I soon moved on to longer lenses for wildlife. ($ 1000 or more for lens than still wasn't good enough.)

https://naturelover.smugmug.com/Nature/Elkhorn-Slough-82809

Consider getting a boat, a blind or a bird feeder to make the 70-300mm lens more useful.

A smartphone won't be any good for wildlife photography unless the wildlife is very cooperative.

You need to do your own homework.

 

[NorthSky]

Wildlife requires expensive lenses Bob. The smallest lens for that application will dry up your $1,000 budget. Now, if you don't want them close up then we can talk. Otherwise, that application is out of reach.

Ok, that makes lense sense.
Then it's no good for me, perhaps for my neighbor.

o

 

[NorthSky]

Hey, that is super cool, and xtremely affordable too. Lovely pics!

I bought a smartphone for ~ $ 200 in 2015. The camera takes smart pictures with vivid color. It has the usual limits of a camera with a tiny sensor but within those limits, it is quite useful. Some examples:

passion flower

morning glory

Ex-Mayor Bob Simmons with Open Space rangers

I'm sure that there are other newer smartphones at the ~$200 price level that deliver comparable results to my ASUS Zenfone.

 

[NorthSky]

I have never said that I was an expert; that is why I asked advice.
I'm here to learn...from indulgent teachers, good teachers, gentle teachers, patient teachers, the best teachers.

I saw some cameras I like on google; the lesser expensive one for the type of photography I love to do was $155,000
And I needed to add few more lenses for portraits...in black and white.
Brief I would need roughly half million dollars just to get me started.
But this thread is not about that, it's about "you don't need an expensive camera" and that is exactly what I posted, ...a Nikon camera that comes with two lenses for starter photographers and for roughly $500 - which is not expensive in my photography book.

I knew Amir was into photography and DSLR. So I asked here because Friday I might just buy one, if any good suggestion I get from here.
I don't want a camera phone, I have plenty of those, I want a new DSLR for less than a thou, something best for the buck. Something on sale on Black Friday...50% or more discount. So a camera that normally sells for two thousand dollars and I can get for half or even less. You guys know some around? It should be better than a camera phone, or not?

I clearly do not understand wildlife photography...200%
My expertise is in the forests, in the arts, in the compositions, on the quick instinct; not the wildlife with a camera.
I apologize if I came up any differently.

You clearly do not understand what's required for wildlife photography, especially birds in flight. It demands more of the camera and lens and of the photographer.

The Nikon kit you liked includes a 70-300mm lens. I used a Nikon body with a earlier 70-300mm lens on a pontoon boat cruise around Elkhorn Slough. That boat got us much closer to wildlife than I could have gotten on foot. I got good pictures on that outing but most of the time, that lens was too short. I soon moved on to longer lenses for wildlife. ($ 1000 or more for lens than still wasn't good enough.)

https://naturelover.smugmug.com/Nature/Elkhorn-Slough-82809

Consider getting a boat, a blind or a bird feeder to make the 70-300mm lens more useful.

A smartphone won't be any good for wildlife photography unless the wildlife is very cooperative.

You need to do your own homework.

 

[j_j]

Is this a good camera @ a good price:
• https://www.bestbuy.com/site/nikon-...0mm-g-ed-lenses-black/5580131.p?skuId=5580131

I need one for Friday.
• https://www.amazon.com/Nikon-18-55mm-3-5-5-6G-70-300mm-4-5-6-3G/dp/B01KITZRBE


So you gotta let me know ///

Well, I have a D7000 and a D7200. The 7200 is "obsoleted" by the 7500, but if you can find one with the same kit as the 3400 you get a really great camera with a pair of really good lenses.

Check Costco.

The 3400 isn't the "best" but it's pretty *(*&( good.

 

[Old Listener]

I have never said that I was an expert; that is why I asked advice.
I'm here to learn...from indulgent teachers, good teachers, gentle teachers, patient teachers, the best teachers.

I saw some cameras I like on google; the lesser expensive one for the type of photography I love to do was $155,000
And I needed to add few more lenses for portraits...in black and white.
Brief I would need roughly half million dollars just to get me started.
But this thread is not about that, it's about "you don't need an expensive camera" and that is exactly what I posted, ...a Nikon camera that comes with two lenses for starter photographers and for roughly $500 - which is not expensive in my photography book.

I knew Amir was into photography and DSLR. So I asked here because Friday I might just buy one, if any good suggestion I get from here.
I don't want a camera phone, I have plenty of those, I want a new DSLR for less than a thou, something best for the buck. Something on sale on Black Friday...50% or more discount. So a camera that normally sells for two thousand dollars and I can get for half or even less. You guys know some around? It should be better than a camera phone, or not?

I clearly do not understand wildlife photography...200%
My expertise is in the forests, in the arts, in the compositions, on the quick instinct; not the wildlife with a camera.
I apologize if I came up any differently.

Bob, I was not trying to give you a hard time. I felt that you were likely to spend $ 500 and wind up with gear that didn't meet your needs.

You didn't allow yourself much time to do consumer research. That is dangerous.

Buying a DSLR can be like joining as fancy country club. You pay to join but you will be paying lots more money as time goes on. If you don't want to keep paying for more lenses, you might consider alternatives to a DSLR. A small sensor bridge camera (camera plus attached zoom lens) may be a better fit. Here are a couple of such cameras that get good reviews from their users.

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ300 Digital Camera
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1162645-REG/panasonic_lumix_dmc_fz300_digital_camera.html

Panasonic Lumix DC-ZS70 Digital Camera (Black)
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...dmc_zs70_k_lumix_dmc_zs70_digital_camera.html

Both cameras have more telephoto reach for wildlife than the Nikon D3400 kit you are considering.

Will either of these deliver better image quality than the Nikon D3400 + kit lenses? In most cases, no. However, the differences may not matter to you.

 

[amirm]

Here is a "grab" shot I took when we were in Banff National Park (Canada) this fall with my Samsung phone. I usually take these shots to share with friends and for geotags (for my camera body that doesn't have GPS). It is post processed by Google and overcooked some but you can see as far as capturing a pretty picture, it is well, pretty good.

 

[NorthSky]

Nice Amir.

Thank you everyone; I will let you know comes Friday or the days following the sales on which DSLR camera or not. But I can guarantee that it won't be a camera phone or a pocket camera.

I have this and that; two Leicas, Olympus, Fuji, and a pack of squirrel cameras...phones and pockets.

I have no Nikon, and no Canon. I have all the money in the world, but that ain't enough; I want love, respect and affection...every single day. I want my planet to be the best place for everyone. And the only way is to give the gift of love...through pictures and all that jazz.

 

[amirm]

Here are some guides Bob for the camera body alone: https://www.dpreview.com/articles/3914636859/2017-buying-guides-best-cameras-for-any-budget

After you get the camera, sign up for a photography workshop for the type of pictures you like to take. In 1-3 days you will learn a ton.

 

[Dismayed]

What you shoot should drive selection of gear. I shoot a lot of indoor basketball where lighting conditions are dreadful. Best case is that I'm at ISO 6400, even with an f/2.8 lens. Action is fast, too, so I need a really top-notch AF system. So I shoot a Nikon D750 with a 70-200 f/2.8 lens. This would be overkill for many situations, but it's just right for my uses.

 

[Old Listener]

What you shoot should drive selection of gear.

So true. Most of the discussions of camera choice I see on forums fail to consider the uses that will matter to the buyer. Reciting a list of features and specs without understanding how they apply to those important uses is stupid, worthless advice. DPR is about the worst place to ask for advice.

I shoot a lot of indoor basketball where lighting conditions are dreadful. Best case is that I'm at ISO 6400, even with an f/2.8 lens. Action is fast, too, so I need a really top-notch AF system. So I shoot a Nikon D750 with a 70-200 f/2.8 lens. This would be overkill for many situations, but it's just right for my uses.

Your uses are very different from mine and your gear choices are too. As it should be.

 

[DonH56]

What you shoot should drive selection of gear. I shoot a lot of indoor basketball where lighting conditions are dreadful. Best case is that I'm at ISO 6400, even with an f/2.8 lens. Action is fast, too, so I need a really top-notch AF system. So I shoot a Nikon D750 with a 70-200 f/2.8 lens. This would be overkill for many situations, but it's just right for my uses.

Overkill? I expect Amir, one of my favorite "anything worth doing is worth overdoing" buddies to chime in with his f/1.x wildlife lenses any moment now... And do not get me wrong, I have nothing against him except the green tinge of jealousy I see through my lenses.

 

[Dismayed]

Overkill? I expect Amir, one of my favorite "anything worth doing is worth overdoing" buddies to chime in with his f/1.x wildlife lenses any moment now... And do not get me wrong, I have nothing against him except the green tinge of jealousy I see through my lenses.

You think that my gear is overkill? Maybe you can fill us in on how you shoot sports under dim lighting. My shoot Friday required ISO 10,000 @ F/2.8 to get shutter speed high enough to freeze action.

 

[DonH56]

You think that my gear is overkill? Maybe you can fill us in on how you shoot sports under dim lighting. My shoot Friday required ISO 10,000 @ F/2.8 to get shutter speed high enough to freeze action.

No, quite the opposite. I seem to be having a lot of problems conveying my thoughts without annoying people today. Amir is a strong proponent of using really great gear for wildlife (among other things) photography and has a stellar collection of lenses. He has cost me a lot of money by nudging me toward better equipment. I think you will find that he, and many of us, are kindred spirits.

Apparently I need to insert the joke thingie more often.

 

[Dismayed]

No, quite the opposite. I seem to be having a lot of problems conveying my thoughts without annoying people today. Amir is a strong proponent of using really great gear for wildlife (among other things) photography and has a stellar collection of lenses. He has cost me a lot of money by nudging me toward better equipment. I think you will find that he, and many of us, are kindred spirits.

Apparently I need to insert the joke thingie more often.

No worries. Sentiment doesn't always come across well in quick forum posts!

I really do wish that inexpensive gear worked for the shooting that I do. But I wanted shots of my sons playing as they were growing up. My younger son starts college next year, so I had thought that I would shoot less, and that I might sell my DSLR and get a mirrorless system. But it seems that I've become the town photographer - Friday I shot competition at our local Boys & Girls Club (photos for club use - I'm a volunteer, not a professional).