1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

My first DSLR camera, Nikon D3200?

Discussion in 'General Equipment Chat & Advice' started by lac, Dec 9, 2013.

  1. lac

    lac Member

    So after many days thinking about what DSLR camera to buy, I have been recommended the Nikon D3200 but don't know for sure! Luckily I have found this forum and I'm hoping I can get some great advice from some of the expects. :D

    I am not a professional photographer but great with taking photos and being artistic and creating some great shots. I love Photoshop so I want to invest in a good DSLR camera as this will give me better opportunities to take some fantastic photo's... so will be mainly used for personal purposes and not professional. I was recommended the Nikon D3200 and wanted to know what you guys think and if the price points are good that I have found? The best deals I have found are:

    Currys:
    (£299 after £30 cashback and using my £10 voucher) for the D3200 body and a 18-55mm VR Telephoto lens (LINK)
    http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/camera...5-mm-vr-telephoto-zoom-lens-14575105-pdt.html

    OR

    Currys:
    (£389 after £50 cashback and using my £10 voucher) for the D3200 body, 18-55mm and 55-200mm Telephoto lens and free Nikon Bag (LINK)
    http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/cameras/digital-cameras/dslr-cameras/d3200-dslr-camera-with-18-55-mm-55-200-mm-telephoto-zoom-lens-free-nikon-dslr-camera-bag-21857420-pdt.html

    OR

    Jessops: (
    £394 after £30 cashback) for the D3200 body, 18-55mm VR Nikon lens and Tamron 70-300mm lens (LINK)
    http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/89152/show.html


    Hope someone can give me some great advice, would be greatly appreciated!

    Kind Regards.
     
  2. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    The Nikon is fine, but have you tried it and various competitors out? It may be that you get on with another camera better, in which case that would be a better buy for you. Get yourself along to a shop, have a play and make sure!
     
  3. IvorETower

    IvorETower Little Buttercup

    For pricing comparisons, start here.....
    http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/Nikon/Nikon-Digital-SLRs
    It's a great camera to have as your first DSLR so long as you don't think you will outgrow it too soon.
    Both the 55-200 and 70-300 lens that you mention do not have any form of image stabilisation. Unless you are going to use a tripod or have very steady hands, I'd strongly suggest that you get a telephoto lens that does have some form of stabilisation built in; Nikon do a VR version of the 55-200, and also a more expensive 55-300VR lens. I'd also suggest that you have a hands-on trial before commiting to purchase.

    There's also this to consider:
    http://www.jessops.com/online.store..._mmc=td-_-affiliate_name-_-advert_id-_-236543
     
  4. lac

    lac Member

    Thanks for the reply! I've had a little play in store and they all pretty much feel the same to me, maybe I'm missing something?!
     
  5. lac

    lac Member


    Thanks for that website link, very useful! Yes the basic currys package (the first link) has a VR lens, does that mean it has some sort of stability?

    Didn't realise there was so much to consider!
     
  6. lac

    lac Member

    I'm now debating if it's better to get a Nikon D3100 and buy a better lense? Thoughts?
     
  7. IvorETower

    IvorETower Little Buttercup

    Depends on how keen you are to have the latest gear, and maybe more importantly, how much low-light shooting you will do. Each new camera model usually brings with it some advances in sensor technology. The D3200 has improved low-light (high ISO) performance compared to the D3100. Both are still "entry level" cameras that lack advanced features such as flash commander mode, but both are capable of taking great shots in the hands of a good photographer in good lighting conditions
     
  8. nikond3200

    nikond3200 Member

    Re: Nikon D3200, any good for a first DSLR?

    hi i had a very similar decision a few months back and went for the d3200 with the 18-55 lens and Nikon cash back. From your choices i would definitely go with the £389 18-55 and 55-200, Nikon lens will be better IQ than Tamron and 200mm is actually more on the DX frame. Plus they hold their value, the Tamron zoom lens are ten a penny and can be picked up for £40-50 second hand.

    It is a great camera, very easy to use and takes great pictures.

    However despite this..I traded mine in for a D7000 because I was struggling to autofocus in low light (possibly more a lens issue), the camera has no auto focus motor so you need to buy more expensive lens with their own autofocus (but if you don't want to buy prime lens etc not an issue), and finally navigating around the camera is a bit more fiddly compared to the d7000 i.e. going through menus to change settings etc.
     
  9. Snorri

    Snorri Well-Known Member

    Re: Nikon D3200, any good for a first DSLR?

    To aswer your question, yes it is. I agree if you got the cash then the middle packet would cover more or less everything to start with, the Tamron lens in the third package is a budget one, not bad at all but I think I would rather go for the Nikkor.
     
  10. Yebisu

    Yebisu Well-Known Member

    Re: Nikon D3200, any good for a first DSLR?

    I agree with Snorri. The 389 quid kit with the two nikon lenses and the bag. With the cashback and voucher that seems a very good deal.

    I have the D3000, which is two generations older than the D3200, and I have no complaints. I bought it over three years ago and it's still my main digital camera.
     
  11. lac

    lac Member

    Re: Nikon D3200, any good for a first DSLR?


    Thanks for the all the replies! The only problem is the 2 lenses are not VR, would this be a serious issue?
     
  12. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    Re: Nikon D3200, any good for a first DSLR?

    Image stabilisation is certainly a nice to have but "serious issue" needs some thought. General guidelines are that you need an exposure at least as short as the reciprocal of the focal length - so for a lens 60 mm this is 1/60s. Most people though can hold still enough to use 1/30 but some would struggle at 1/125. Image stabilisation promises to improve by 2-3 stops so by the "rule" 1/60 can become 1//15-1/8.

    In general daylight photography with the ISO ranges of modern cameras the need to hand hold at 1/15-1/8s isn't very high. It comes into its own for interior shots where lighting is poor or when capturing movement by deliberately reducing light using ND filters.

    For longer lenses the "rule" says for example 1/300 for a 300 mm focal length so VR makes this as slow as 1/60 to 1/30 ( in whole stops) which is very useful for static subjects but action shots need a reasonable shutter speed to counter subject movement.

    Nearly all my lenses are image stabilised as a matter of choice. The ones that are not are short focal length used at wider than 24mm which I can hand-hold at 1/15s and a 400 mm where the IS version was too expensive. I use that with support, on a monopod, and have got sharp pictures at 1/60, albeit with failures. For handheld I use 1/500 - 1/1000 faster than the "rule" because actually the camera+lens is quite heavy and I shake more as I get tired.

    So VR is very nice to have and can be more or less important depending on how steady you are and what/when you photograph. Physical support to the camera is still adviseable for low light and use of very long lenses.
     
  13. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    Re: Nikon D3200, any good for a first DSLR?


    I would take some issues with that. The 1/focal length rule of thumb is indeed that, but it only applies to 35mm film/full frame, even as far as it applies; to use it with smaller sensors, you need to apply the crop factor. So for a 60mm focal length on a Nikon, you would need 1/60 x 1.5 (really 1.55, but we'll ignore that) = 1/90. I would also disagree that "most people" can hold a camera steadier than that - some can, almost certainly most can't.

    As to is the OP's question - is lack of VR a serious issue, yes, I think it is. It's not essential, cameras were used handheld for many years without it, and it doesn't stop subject movement, but it's a real boon if you don't shoot everything on a tripod, and I for one wouldn't be tempted to make the relatively small saving by not having it. I've been using lenses with image stabilisers now for around 15 years, probably twice as long as most people, and have found it invaluable.
     
  14. nikond3200

    nikond3200 Member

    Re: Nikon D3200, any good for a first DSLR?

    Peterobs guide is very good and something i have read before but useful to remind yourself of the rules regarding max hand held exposures. Firstly are you sure that these models do not have VR as i thought all new Nikon kit lens had VR and you are buying from Currys so I think you might have misread.

    I have always only used VR lens and can down to 1/10 and get sharp pictures..not sure if this would be the same w/o VR. If there is a big price difference im sure non VR will be ok.
     
  15. Snorri

    Snorri Well-Known Member

    VR is nice to have when you get to the longer lenses. One option would be to take the body and the 18-55VR in your first link and then add this later. The SP 70-300mm from Tamron is actually rather good but yes it would push up the budget.
     
  16. nikond3200

    nikond3200 Member

    Tamron doesnr have vr either ..i would rather have a nikon 55-200mm without vr than tamron

    if theres not much in it price wise get vr, as i said im sure it has it
     
  17. Snorri

    Snorri Well-Known Member

    I think you will find that the SP verson has VR or VC as Tamron calls it. Apart from that it also has ultrasonic ring motor, internal focusing and good better optics. And yes £200 higer price tag...
     
  18. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    Re: Nikon D3200, any good for a first DSLR?

    Darn, I thought I typed effective focal length as indeed it is that which is important. I agree, most of my lenses are stabilised too. Really 15 years? My first was 2007 when I got a 5D (I still think 35 mm)
     
  19. lac

    lac Member

    Thanks for all the replies and advice, really appreciate it!

    So I have just returned from Currys and found out that the twin pack comes with the 18-55mm lens which is VR but the 55-200mm lens is not VR!

    So I decided to buy the single lens offer which I managed to get for £299 and that was the Nikon D3200 body and a 18-55mm VR lens, and I have just purchased a 55-200mm VR lens brand new for £50. So I think I managed to get a much better deal that the original twin pack and I now have both lenses but VR!

    Happy Days :D
     
  20. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    Re: Nikon D3200, any good for a first DSLR?

    Yeah, my first stabilised lens was the Canon 28-135 IS USM - it was Canon's second such lens, released in 1998 but I got mine in '99 or 2000. Used it until I got my 10D, when it wasn't really that much use any more.
     

Share This Page