I have been thinking about getting a new digital camera for a while now and may be closer to getting something, possibly as a family Christmas present.

I was really interested in the original Sony RX100 at around $368 because it is compact but has some fine capabilities including one inch sensor and quality Zeiss lens. The wife however has indicated she would like a DSLR. We are primarily interested in pictures and truth be told our new Samsung phones, S7 and S9+, will be our main cameras due to them always being with us and they take fine pictures for our almost all our needs.

Doing a little research I found that are some pretty good deals these days for DSLR camera. In particular package deal for Nikon D3500 with two lenses for $500. After reading more about them I am on board trying a new DSLR camera. We only need a beginner DSLR camera and $500 is already a bit more than I really wanted to spend at this time especially due to dear wife's habit of rapidly losing interest LOL. We hardly ever print out photos and mostly view them from our laptop or tablets. Decent performance in lower light would be great but I expect with the sensor in the Nikon D3500 that will not be an issue especially compared the the phone cameras and point and shoot cameras we have used in the past. The video recording capability will be of little interest. Knowing my wife it would be used in automatic mode almost exclusively. I would like to try some of the manual options. Lack of touch screen is not a concern.

I know there are more than a few options in that price range but I am primarily interested on anyone's thoughts about the Nikon D3500 or it's replacement the D3400 that is very similar, particularly from anyone who owns one, has owned one, or has used one. Again I am looking for feedback from an average guy/gal perspective and not from an advanced photographer or professional use standpoint.

Wow how times have changed LOL. I spent more money on a single lens for my Canon AE1 than this whole kit goes for and that was 40 some years ago.

Thanks for sharing any experiences or thoughts.

https://www.nikonusa.com/en/ni...roductTabs-TechSpecs

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07G...017941_t2_B07GZXZNZM --- Nikon D3500 DX-Format DSLR Two Lens Kit NIKKOR 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR and NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3G

This message has been edited. Last edited by: grumpy1,

I will do well with either. I happen to like a little heaftier camera so I would go with the D3400. I think dimensionally it's a wee bit bigger and heavier and I like the button layout better.

You mentioned that the kit you are considering is the on that includes the NIKKOR 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G and NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3 lenses. I have these lenses and they are very good, but I think you will outgrow them quickly. The 70-300 IS not a VR (vibration reduction) lens. That's fine for tripod shooting. But if you want to photograph, say, wildlife offhand, you will soon want the same lens with the VR feature. I bought the 70-300 VR right after I bought my D7200 and it is way better for offhand shooting than the non-VR lens.

If the camera is offered as a kit with the 18-140 VR lens, I would choose that option. You can add a 70-300 VR later. You will then have just about all practical focal lengths covered with just two lenses. And while the 18-140 VR is not Nikon's best lens, it is better built that either of the kit lenses you listed. It's also a faster lens and has better low light performance. For a DX camera for the more-than-casual shooter, the 18-140 VR, 70-300 VR and the 35mm prime lens would provide you with an excellent section of lenses for 99.99% of things you will want to photograph.

quote:

Originally posted by Micropterus:
I will do well with either. I happen to like a little heaftier camera so I would go with the D3400. I think dimensionally it's a wee bit bigger and heavier and I like the button layout better.

You mentioned that the kit you are considering is the on that includes the NIKKOR 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G and NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3 lenses. I have these lenses and they are very good, but I think you will outgrow them quickly. The 70-300 IS not a VR (vibration reduction) lens. That's fine for tripod shooting. But if you want to photograph, say, wildlife offhand, you will soon want the same lens with the VR feature. I bought the 70-300 VR right after I bought my D7200 and it is way better for offhand shooting than the non-VR lens.

If the camera is offered as a kit with the 18-140 VR lens, I would choose that option. You can add a 70-300 VR later. You will then have just about all practical focal lengths covered with just two lenses. And while the 18-140 VR is not Nikon's best lens, it is better built that either of the kit lenses you listed. It's also a faster lens and has better low light performance. For a DX camera for the more-than-casual shooter, the 18-140 VR, 70-300 VR and the 35mm prime lens would provide you with an excellent section of lenses for 99.99% of things you will want to photograph.

Great info, exactly what I was looking for, and thanks. The kit is $100 more for the non VR zoom lens while the 18-140 lens is VR (I also edited the description). I suppose I could try the non VR zoom lens and see how we like it or not and if not Ebay it to try and get most of my investment in that back. Again thanks for the info.

I’m not familiar with Nikon or Canon but I saw this Christmas Special for a Canon Eos Rebel T6 for $350 off.

https://www.amazon.com/Canon-D...EC563C6HPW5N053YTCXS

quote:

Originally posted by Jimineer:
I’m not familiar with Nikon or Canon but I saw this Christmas Special for a Canon Eos Rebel T6 for $350 off.

https://www.amazon.com/Canon-D...EC563C6HPW5N053YTCXS

Crazy good deals on DSLR cameras right now, thanks and I will take a look.

I don't know if it makes any difference to you but the Nikon D3500 is 24.2 megapixel and the Cannon Rebel T6 is 18.

quote:

Originally posted by grumpy1:

quote:

Originally posted by Jimineer:
I’m not familiar with Nikon or Canon but I saw this Christmas Special for a Canon Eos Rebel T6 for $350 off.

https://www.amazon.com/Canon-D...EC563C6HPW5N053YTCXS

Crazy good deals on DSLR cameras right now, thanks and I will take a look.

Just an fyi- BHPhoto.com is a vendor of choice on AR15 forum, so I guess that means they are a sponsor but I’m not sure. They have the same deal - again I don’t know how the EOS compares to the 3500. YouTube is full of reviews.

If you have any interest in very lightly used second-hand, I've got a D5300 that I'd part with for a song.

Can't speak as to the newer models but I have an older 3200 that has been great for me. I don't use a lot of the features but it takes great pictures.

quote:

Originally posted by chongosuerte:
If you have any interest in very lightly used second-hand, I've got a D5300 that I'd part with for a song.

Thanks for the offer, I will keep it under consideration.

quote:

Originally posted by VANQUISH:
Can't speak as to the newer models but I have an older 3200 that has been great for me. I don't use a lot of the features but it takes great pictures.

Thanks and good to hear.

I’ve been shooting Nikon DSLRs for almost a decade and have both, currently. I happen to agree with Micropterus about the feel of the 3400 vs 3500, FWIW.

One thing that caught my attention in your OP was your mention of low light shooting. I’m afraid you’ll be disappointed in the kit lenses and will find yourself wishing you had a much faster prime lens like the 35mm f/1.8G ED, which is superb. Don’t get me wrong, those kit lenses are great walk around lenses and I actually have their 18-200mm cousin mounted on one of my bodies pretty much all the time, but even the 18-55 only stops down to 3.5, so you may find yourself a bit frustrated that you can actually get much better shots with a point and shoot or your cell phone in many low-light settings.

Just something to consider.

-Rob

quote:

Originally posted by grumpy1:


Great info, exactly what I was looking for, and thanks. The kit is $100 more for the non VR zoom lens while the 18-140 lens is VR (I also edited the description). I suppose I could try the non VR zoom lens and see how we like it or not and if not Ebay it to try and get most of my investment in that back. Again thanks for the info.

Thanks. The non-VR 70-300 is a decent lens. I've taken a lot of good pictures with it. Billions of great photos have been taken without VR and, at least theoretically, you'll get longer battery life without it. (Though, Nikon batteries are excellent and I've taken my D7200 on vacation and come back with the battery still having over half its charge.) And for tripod use, you probably would not want VR, or at least turn the VR function off (which you can do with most newer Nikon DX DSLRs using the menu). The 70-300 non-VR and the 70-300 VR are indistinguishable in size and appearance, with the only thing is the "VR" printed on the lens body.

I currently have the D5300 and it is a great camera. I also have the 70-300 VR lens and the biggest complaint I have with it is that it's a little slow to auto focus. It searches quite a bit longer than my other AF lenses. If I were in your shoes I'd pick the 18-105 lens over the 70-300 non-VR lens. It makes a far better walking around lens. The suggestion of getting the 35mm f/1.8 ED lens is an excellent one. I use it in museums where flashes are frowned upon and works great for that. You can do it with the 18-55 but you will need to bump up the ISO quite a bit.

Jim

I upgraded from a D3200 to a D5600 6 months ago. The D3200 took great pictures, but I found myself wanting the articulating LCD screen. It is now so simple to get great pics of the grandkids down on their level without having to get down on my knees, or laying down for any picture that requires such a low shot.

quote:

Originally posted by BurtonRW:
I’ve been shooting Nikon DSLRs for almost a decade and have both, currently. I happen to agree with Micropterus about the feel of the 3400 vs 3500, FWIW.

One thing that caught my attention in your OP was your mention of low light shooting. I’m afraid you’ll be disappointed in the kit lenses and will find yourself wishing you had a much faster prime lens like the 35mm f/1.8G ED, which is superb. Don’t get me wrong, those kit lenses are great walk around lenses and I actually have their 18-200mm cousin mounted on one of my bodies pretty much all the time, but even the 18-55 only stops down to 3.5, so you may find yourself a bit frustrated that you can actually get much better shots with a point and shoot or your cell phone in many low-light settings.

Just something to consider.

-Rob

Thanks for the info, much appreciated. Glad to hear that there are better lenses available for low light performance.

quote:

Originally posted by Jimbo54:
I currently have the D5300 and it is a great camera. I also have the 70-300 VR lens and the biggest complaint I have with it is that it's a little slow to auto focus. It searches quite a bit longer than my other AF lenses. If I were in your shoes I'd pick the 18-105 lens over the 70-300 non-VR lens. It makes a far better walking around lens. The suggestion of getting the 35mm f/1.8 ED lens is an excellent one. I use it in museums where flashes are frowned upon and works great for that. You can do it with the 18-55 but you will need to bump up the ISO quite a bit.

Jim

Great info. thanks Jim.

quote:

Originally posted by Warhorse:
I upgraded from a D3200 to a D5600 6 months ago. The D3200 took great pictures, but I found myself wanting the articulating LCD screen. It is now so simple to get great pics of the grandkids down on their level without having to get down on my knees, or laying down for any picture that requires such a low shot.

LOL. Sounds like you are having a great time with the grandkids.

The D3500 is pretty much exactly the same as the D3400, but they moved the buttons to better locations. Also, it is a little lighter.

There will be no difference in the images both cameras take. Still, if I'm going to purchase new, I'd get the newest I could afford.

Most DSLRs and the newer mirrorless start sitting around after a while since you have to be more involved with their maintenance and use, AND because they aren't nearly as convenient as point and shoots and cell phones.

I only have an 85mm 1.8 right now for my Sony Alpha mirrorless, and I was planning on getting a wide angle prime or zoom before eventually getting a nice 70-200mm zoom. However, after getting my new iPhone XR recently, I'm thinking I'll for the 70-200mm since this new iPhone's camera is just so darn good. Of course, one of the best things about it, other than the great wide-angles, is that it is always with me.

To add, it is probable the big camera manufacturers are going to going heavy with mirrorless. If you are the casual photographer, the D3400/D3500 with kit lenses, will be great. However, the performance and features of mirrorless are hard to beat.

Thanks for the response ftttu.

It was my experiences with my new Samsung S7 camera that motivate me to look into a newer camera. T was startled by how good the camera is in my S7. My Moto G phone finally died and I never liked the camera on that phone but to be fair it was a cheap phone. I was not really looking for a much nicer phone but Best Buy was selling unlocked Samsung S7 for $419 so I figured why not and glad I did.

My current camera is an 8 year old Canon SX130 and in it's day it was a good mid range point and shoot zoom camera and still works great with better lighting but low light not so much.

I did some comparison in lower light and this is the difference between my Canon SX130 and Samsung S7. In both pictures settings were on auto and no software massaging of either picture. Decent low light performance is important to me because at home often opportunities for spur of the moment pictures of family and pets often happen in less than ideal lighting and built in flash does not cut it.

At this point due to costs of extra lens I am debating whether to get a DSLR or a premium point and shoot like the Sony RX100.