[R-Six]

Originally Posted by roy_libran

Nikon D5300 with a AF-P lens combo

Thanks! Will check that out.

Originally Posted by roy_libran

By the way, don't get overly swayed by online deals. They may not be the best. Do check locally with the good dealers as well.

Sure thing. Since the online sale is open until the 8th, my plan is to check out the retail stores on Saturday before I pick up anything.

Cheers
R-Six

[Aroy]

Originally Posted by R-Six

Hello People,

With all the offers we see online, I'm tempted to upgrade from my Sony P&S camera to a decent DSLR. Just so you know, the usage is going to be more or less the same. Limited to shooting pictures during our vacations. Mostly landscapes and the family posing around it at times too.

I've kept a budget of around 35-40K. What would be a good upgrade for me and something that I wouldn't outgrow quite soon? If I can get a kit or a combo pack, that would be even nicer.

I thought about buying high end P&S but then I feel like if I'm spending around 25-28K on a point and shoot, why not extend a little more and get a DSLR since that would give me a luxury to upgrade my lenses in the future as well.

Hope the gurus here can help me!

R-Six

It all depends on whether you are happy with P&S or not. If you are happy, then I would suggest get a Super Zoom like Nikon P900. That will enable a wide gamut of images, rarely possible with a DSLR under a few lacs of rupees worth of lenses.

[R-Six]

Originally Posted by Aroy

Super Zoom like Nikon P900

Yes, I was considering Nikon P900 or Sony HX400 earlier. But then my mind is like since I'm spending around 30K anyway, why not put a few thousands more and go for a DSLR itself.

[a4anurag]

Originally Posted by R-Six

Yes, I was considering Nikon P900 or Sony HX400 earlier. But then my mind is like since I'm spending around 30K anyway, why not put a few thousands more and go for a DSLR itself.

How about Nikon D3400? i paid 29K for it.

[R-Six]

Originally Posted by a4anurag

Nikon D3400? i paid 29K

That sounds like a good deal. During my search online, even I shortlisted Nikon D3400, Nikon D3300, and Canon 1300D as well.

Like roy_libran suggested, I'm planning to check out these models in the retail stores tomorrow as well. Just to make sure that I'm not missing any good deals they are offering while ogling at the listings and prices online.

[Aroy]

Originally Posted by a4anurag

How about Nikon D3400? i paid 29K for it.

There is nothing wrong with using a P&S and buying it for 30-40K, as you are getting quite a lot. With P900 or equivalent that is all you spend on camera and lens. To get the same performance you will need a few lenses

. Wide ~14mm
. Kit Lens - 18-55
. Mid Range - 70-300
. Long Tele - 200-500
an investment of at least 150K

At a later stage
. External Flash
. Sturdy Tripod
another investment of 50K+

At the camera level the P900 and D3300 cost about the same, so with a DSLR you will need at least 1.5L worth of lenses to get the range.

That plus a lot of storage. With DSLR it is best to shoot RAW and then process the images to get the best out of the camera sensor.

If you find that the current P&S is good enough, I see no reason to go and get a DSLR, which while better option requires quite a bit of skill. If you are not interested in learning the nuances and use "All Auto" modes, you are better of with a Super Zoom P&S.

[amrisharm]

Originally Posted by R-Six

Yes, I was considering Nikon P900 or Sony HX400 earlier. But then my mind is like since I'm spending around 30K anyway, why not put a few thousands more and go for a DSLR itself.

Originally Posted by Aroy

There is nothing wrong with using a P&S and buying it for 30-40K, as you are getting quite a lot. With P900 or equivalent that is all you spend on camera and lens. To get the same performance you will need a few lenses

. Wide ~14mm
. Kit Lens - 18-55
. Mid Range - 70-300
. Long Tele - 200-500
an investment of at least 150K

At a later stage
. External Flash
. Sturdy Tripod
another investment of 50K+

At the camera level the P900 and D3300 cost about the same, so with a DSLR you will need at least 1.5L worth of lenses to get the range.

That plus a lot of storage. With DSLR it is best to shoot RAW and then process the images to get the best out of the camera sensor.

If you find that the current P&S is good enough, I see no reason to go and get a DSLR, which while better option requires quite a bit of skill. If you are not interested in learning the nuances and use "All Auto" modes, you are better of with a Super Zoom P&S.

Well I have had first hand experience with both types of cameras, high end point and shoot camera like the Nikon P900 and a DSLR. I had originally bought the Sony HX100V back in 2010, the predecessor to the Sony HX400v. It had all automatic as well as manual controls for Aperture, Shutter and ISO, as well as a super zoom of 30X which equated to about 27-800mm zoom. I was so attracted by the zoom that I went and bought it.

The camera is fine when the conditions are good like while shooting in the day time when light is ample. But as soon as you encounter less than perfect situation for shooting like in the evenings or indoors then the quality went down dramatically. Now I am using a Nikon D5300. Yes one step above the D3400, but almost similar. And I can tell you, the pictures from the DSLR beats the High end Point and shoot camera any day.

Why is that? Well it all boils down to the Sensor size in the camera. The Nikon P900 has a sensor size of 1/2.3 inch (6.2mm x 4.6mm). The Nikon D3400 has a sensor size of APS-C (23.5mm x 15.6mm). So basically a sensor that is 4 times larger. Which equates to 4 times more light, 4 times more detail and so on. In the end it all comes down to better pictures when shooting in less than perfect situations.

The one advantage of the 30 or 40 times zoom... well the more you zoom in the picture quality suffers more. The quality deteriorates quite a bit. I guess this too has to do with the small sensor.

My advice is to get the DSLR for sure. If you are not that into photography then do add a bit extra Rupees and get the D3400 with the 18-140mm lens. This combo will satisfy all your requirements with high quality images. If price is a big factor then the D3400 with the standard kit lens is also fine.

As for me, I am into photography as a hobby so I have the Nikon D5300 With a 50mm 1.8 for Portraits, A nikon 10-20mm for landscape shots. And I also have the kit lens 18-55mm.

You can compare Sensor size below:

[Aroy]

I have been using D3300 since March, 2014. It is an excellent body and priced just right. If you do not have an external flash, then get the D3300 rather than D3400 (whose flash is lower power to extend battery life).
http://cameradecision.com/compare/Ni...vs-Nikon-D3300

Once you get the body and the kit 18-55 lens, get at least the 35mm F1.8 or 50mm F1.8 for low light shots.

I again recommend that you use shoot RAW and process the files in Nikon Capture NX-D. Post processing RAW files will enable you to do a lot of things that are rarely possible with jpg files, as the RAW files have 12 bit of information compared to 8 bits for jpeg. That is straight 4 bits or 16 times more shades per colour, or better shadow recovery.

[C300]

Recently tried the Nikon D500 + 200-500mm combo at Bengaluru. Coming from Pentax set up the AF was a revelation. The bird in flight shots which I couldn't get with Pentax were so much easier with D500. The overall weight of the combo was the only downside. Pentax K-5 + 300mm is compact and lightweight. Still in two minds whether to take the plunge.

[Aroy]

Originally Posted by C300

Recently tried the Nikon D500 + 200-500mm combo at Bengaluru. Coming from Pentax set up the AF was a revelation. The bird in flight shots which I couldn't get with Pentax were so much easier with D500. The overall weight of the combo was the only downside. Pentax K-5 + 300mm is compact and lightweight. Still in two minds whether to take the plunge.

The weight of lenses depends on the maximum aperture. A 300mm F4 is way heavier compared to an F5.6 one. If you want a light weight body then the D3300/D3400 is there at less than 450g, compared to over 800g for D500.

The D500 has a phenomenal AF as well as a low light performance, ideal for wildlife shots at dawn and dusk, where others struggle. So if you can afford the set definitely go for the D500 + 200-500 combo. Else you can get the D7200 at a much lower cost.

[nilanjanray]

Originally Posted by Aroy

The weight of lenses depends on the maximum aperture. A 300mm F4 is way heavier compared to an F5.6 one. If you want a light weight body then the D3300/D3400 is there at less than 450g, compared to over 800g for D500.

The D500 has a phenomenal AF as well as a low light performance, ideal for wildlife shots at dawn and dusk, where others struggle. So if you can afford the set definitely go for the D500 + 200-500 combo. Else you can get the D7200 at a much lower cost.

D500's AF is a bit better than D7200's.

Low light performance is more or less the same.

[M35]

Originally Posted by Aroy

A 300mm F4 is way heavier compared to an F5.6 one.

Nikon 300 F4 PF VR weighs just 754g

Originally Posted by Aroy

If you want a light weight body then the D3300/D3400 is there at less than 450g, compared to over 800g for D500.

D3xxx for birding? Nah - the AF, ergonomics and handling, shooting speed, buffer, …you name it. You ask me how I know

Originally Posted by Aroy

Else you can get the D7200 at a much lower cost.

Agreed

[navin_bhp]

Originally Posted by rm_arjuna

Recently was on a vacation in coastal area , due to cloudy and overcast sky most pics came up darker inspite of increasing iso and shutter speed upto 1/3.

Need tips for shooting in such conditions, i don't want to use flash or auto mode and want to learn shooting in overcast or low light conditions.

I use a Canon 70d with 18-135 kit lens. Look forward for suggestions.

Use exposure compensation in such situations. If the camera underexposes you need to compensate with + value. I think the 70D has ±5 at 1/3 EV, 1/2 EV steps. If the picture is too bright underexpose with a - value. Rotate the rear dial to the right to overexpose. Hope this helps.

[Durango Dude]

Originally Posted by C300

Recently tried the Nikon D500 + 200-500mm combo at Bengaluru. Coming from Pentax set up the AF was a revelation. The bird in flight shots which I couldn't get with Pentax were so much easier with D500. The overall weight of the combo was the only downside. Pentax K-5 + 300mm is compact and lightweight. Still in two minds whether to take the plunge.

I've been using the Nikon D610 and Tamron 150-600mm combo without a tripod since I bought them both in 2014. It's just a matter of getting used to it.

[Aroy]

Originally Posted by M35

....

D3xxx for birding? Nah - the AF, ergonomics and handling, shooting speed, buffer, …you name it. You ask me how I know

...

When finances are secondary, then a top of the line body + lens is the best choice. When you are budget constrained then the lower cost Nikons DSLR do a decent job.

In spite of having a limited number of AF points, D3300 has a decent AF and in good light I have yet to miss a bird in flight. Couple that with a powerful flash and you are set. At 5FPS the burst rate is workable for most situations. Though I would like to have 10FPS and 100 shot buffer.

When you want a very light DSLR and the light is good, D3300 + 300mm F4 catches birds pretty well, and the combination is light enough for you not to tire you the whole day.

Of course if you want low light and high ISO capability then nothing beats D500 ib DX and D5 in FF, but that comes at a cost.