[DSLR] Nikon 3300 or 5500?

The 18-200 is heavy. It's a good lens and it's nice having the range in one package, but I've found I much prefer using lighter lenses even if they have less range. I got legs. I can move to get shots.
 
DealyRrunk said:
I'm pretty sure I paid 50-100$ less than that for the same sort of kit about 3 or 4 years ago, hard to believe they haven't come down in price at all since then.
Click to expand...

5500 just came out 3 months ago

you get a different 5000 series?
 
dunno if adorama has bundles for that camera, but often you'll see stuff like bags and cards for free, same price.. its a different sku tho, you have to look for it

the last camera i got they actually included a shure vp83, which is a $200 mic
 
do you guys know why you are buying dslr over mirrorless?

i have a dslr but seems mirrorless are cheaper for entry level?
 
i learned on a 35mm SLR. i learned to shoot, develop my own film, make contact sheets and print my own photos.

it seemed like a natural progression. i dont know much to anything about mirrorless and didn't look into them at all.
 
Last edited:
def said:
do you guys know why you are buying dslr over mirrorless?

i have a dslr but seems mirrorless are cheaper for entry level?
Click to expand...

Mirrorless cameras have the advantage of usually being lighter, more compact, faster and better for video; but that comes at the cost of fewer lenses and accessories. DSLRs have the advantage in lens selection and an optical viewfinder that works better in low light, but they are more complex and bulkier.

A mirrorless camera is better for a casual to semi-serious photographer who wants an all-day carry camera. A serious or pro shooter who wants access to a wider range of lenses and other gear would be better off with a DSLR. One area where there is no difference is image quality. Both modern DSLR and mirrorless cameras can take excellent photos.
Click to expand...
 
Wraithed said:
One area where there is no difference is image quality.
Click to expand...
lol! Whatever ignorant fucktard wrote that should never be allowed to use the internet ever again to spew such obnoxious horseshit. There's no shitty mirrorless pos that can come anywhere close to the image quality of a Nikon d810. That said, I doubt I'll ever own a dslr again. My badass Ricoh gr5 serves my needs quite nicely.
 
the quality gap is getting closer but at this point if your needs necessitate a full frame camera, get that. some of the new mirrorless cameras may do all of the things a full frame does but it won't do it as well (yet).

sony a7s are really nice but they're more of tech demo for sony than an actualized photography product. you can tell this by a distinct lack of native lenses for the camera. adapters are well and good but you have to be super careful because image quality is not always 100% comparable to the systems for which they're designed. a7, however, is awesome for video. so it also depends on whether you're buying a camera for still photo or video work.

i'm speaking strictly about still pictures so for a hobbyist like myself the choice comes down to deciding if i want a full frame (bulky, heavy but does everything) so likely nikon d610/750 or one of the new generation mirrorless (smaller, good low light sensitivity, generally cheaper lenses) in my case i'd get a fujifilm xt-1 which is an amazing piece of tech with equally awesome selection of native lenses.
 
slogg said:
That 5500 is right up my price point, do I get the kit with a lense or buy the body and then a lense? What lense should I get ?
Click to expand...

It depends. Only buy the kit if that's the lens you want, otherwise its a waste of money. I don't know what to recommend you because I don't know what you want to shoot, but whatever you do buy used. If you're like most people, you'll want a 35 1.8G. It's a fixed lens but that's okay. Keep and learn on that until you can afford a decent 2.8 zoom in the 17-50/55 range. When you've had fun with that go and grab a longer lens. The 70-200 f4 is going to be better than any variable aperture 70-300/50-200. If you want to go wider, the tokina 11-16 2.8 is nice. Canon has a 10-18 IS that is awesome and cheap, but I'm not aware of a nikon alternative.

This is a far better option than buying a bunch of low end optics to cover the "range" and wasting your money on plasticky lenses. You want to build a collection you'll have forever, and all you'll have to upgrade are camera bodies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top