The Good Guys has reduced the Nikon D5100 Single Lens Kit for $474. If you are near to
Cannington,Joondalup, Maitland stores don't forget to claim up to $50 store credit back when you shop over $500. The cheapest price from a local store for Nikon D5100 Single Lens Kit. Kogan has it for $499 + shipping.
Note: Not sure if it is advertised on TGG Xmas catalog. If it is, QLD residents also can claim extra $50 when they shop $500+.
Just go all out and get a full frame. Best!
Don't that this is equipped with that 16mp sensor that gives it an edge over the 24mp D3200/D3300/D5200/D5300 in terms of low light performance
That's very true and megapixels ain't everything. Also, the D5100 shares the same sensor (made by Sony incidentally) as the more pro D7000.
d3200 vs d5100 yes d5100 wins in high iso performance by a hair. But 8 extra megapixels IS worth it for the extra resolution.
d3300 however they've made more optimizations and it wins over the d5100 in high iso by a considerable margin (source dxomark)
This is coming from an owner of a 16mpx sony sensor - It was a great sensor but its very old now.
All that being said - Budget cameras around the $500 mark are SO similar its not funny. Basically shop for price and not features as 90% of people will never "get more lenses" or take it off "green mode"
So I would also go with what the above poster said and go d3200 for under $350 and pocket the change.
Actually if you have a look at the SNR 18% graph on the comparison between the three D5XXX cameras you will see that they are all incredibly similar. Nikon's (Toshiba fabbed) 24MP sensor is quite amazing, however in the real world you will find that the lower resolution means you will be able to use slightly slower shutter speeds meaning you can actually keep the ISO a bit lower (source, having shot all three cameras). The Sony 16MP sensor was, and still is a great sensor.
It's not as simple as more MP = worse low light performance. It depends on the quality of the sensor as well and to be honest, the sensor in the D5100 is already an old sensor. You can look it up on DxOMark who will have the tests, but from memory, the 3rd generation (i.e. D3300, D5300) have better low light performance. Again, this is the entire discussion of lens sharpness all over again. Between DX sensors, unless you're printing mural sized prints or pixel peeping, you're never really going to notice. If you're crazy about high ISO performance, get a full frame or get a faster lens. Before digital ISO 1600 film was considered extremely fast, these days, basically all these beginner level DSLRs can go higher than that for clean output and the FX bodies can all surpass ISO 6400 with ease, 4x more than the fastest film.
Personally, I would go for the D5200 over the D5100 because of one very important feature - that's the improved AF system. The D5200 has the 39 point AF system from the D7000 which is simply superior to the 11 point AF system on the D5100. The 11 point AF system on the D5100 can't continuously track, the D5200 can. That's the big difference for me and why I would pay the extra premium for the D5200.
For most people though, the D3200 is fine. Three things make up great photos - imagination, technique and image quality. For almost everyone looking to buy into a DSLR for the first time, I would highly suggest improving the first two before getting a camera. Buy a book about photography, study the works of photographers you admire, read, play around, practice, attend a workshop or a photowalk, make friends with photographers…etc. They'll all improve your pictures much more than a brand spanking new camera.
<quote>"It's not as simple as more MP = worse low light performance"</quote>
I totally agree there. But to the same effect it is not as simple as Low light performance = ISO performance, DXO tests both ISO and Dynamic Range which are important for low light performance but do so in a manner that removes camera handling from the equation. Something that you may/may not notice is the steady climb in shutter speed that is required when you move to higher resolution cameras, something I have noticed moving from 12MP > 16MP > 24MP (and in full frame from 12MP>36MP). The slightly higher (and do check the DXO SNR 18% measurements) performance of the 24MP sensor is actually erased by the handling advantage on the 16MP sensor (if the 12MP was as good in terms of ISO performance, the handling advantage over a 24MP sensor would be even larger).
The better AF system in the later D5200 and D5300 are huge improvements, but on a budget you should still consider the D5100 (esp if you want the screen, thus ruling out the D3200/D3300). However at the end of the day a faster lens is going to produce a bigger difference in low light quality for any of these cameras.
I also totally agree about the importance of technique and imagination, you have posted good advice about learning, experimenting and practising.
You're 100% right regarding the sensors, but I still wonder whether any of that matters at reasonable sizes. To be perfectly honest, I've used a D5100, D7000 and D600. In my opinion, the D7000 and D600 (which are really the same camera) handle much better than the D5100 in terms of being an extension to my arm and being nice and fast to shoot with. The sensor in the D600, of course, is far superior, being an FX sensor. I do notice better results. With my D7000, I wouldn't be able to go past ISO 3200 without noticing a loss in image quality. With my D600, I can easily go past ISO 6400. That said, with the nice denoise algorithms available in Lightroom, a lot of my ISO 3200 files from the D7000 look "good enough".
That said, it depends on what kind of photos you're taking. Most of my shots are portraits, not the most demanding in terms of detail and resolving power. It's okay to lose detail because faces aren't that intricate and detailed to start off with and people actually tend to like smoother skin. For complex landscapes, then yeah, a lot of what you said will actually start having a big effect.
The better AF system in the later D5200 and D5300 are huge improvements, but on a budget you should still consider the D5100 (esp if you want the screen, thus ruling out the D3200/D3300).
To be honest, after using the AF system on the D7000 (same as D5200), I would seriously recommend it over the D5100's old AF system, it's actually that much better. But yeah, most probably won't need it.
However at the end of the day a faster lens is going to produce a bigger difference in low light quality for any of these cameras.
So many people worry about low light performance, but how many shots do we actually take in low light? To me, it's the same as the discussion about how lenses perform at f/1.4. How often do we actually shoot at f/1.4.
To me, I think the most important thing is taking your camera. Get lenses that make sense, no point getting a hulking 70-200 f/2.8 and then not bothering to take it out because it's just a beast to carry.
I also totally agree about the importance of technique and imagination, you have posted good advice about learning, experimenting and practising.
It really is - if there's something I wish I knew, it's the importance of learning. I bought way too much gear only to sell it off later because I didn't realise its disbenefits - e.g. with the 70-200 f/2.8 zoom - too heavy!
It seems like we agree on the major points. Esp the fact that this is a good deal (we both have note +ve). I'm running a D300/D700 combination and use the D800 when necessary. I also run an A7 but that is a different story. I'm mainly landscape and macro with more street shooting creeping in. I stitch for extra resolution when necessary. Not to open another can of worms but the primary reasons for not upgrading is handling and diffraction limiting with the higher resolution cameras (you notice this a lot with macro).
For the normal user once you can get a reasonable image at 3200 you are set. Most will have resorted to flash by that point. As for brighter lenses, having a f1.8 that you use at f2.5 is still significantly more light than a f4 or worse.
Reasonable price, but the D5100 is a dated camera now. The only real benefit of the D5XXX series is the articulating screen. If you don't need the articulating screen, save yourself $150 or so and go for the equivalent D3XXX series. If you actually want a better camera, go for the D7XXX series. The D5XXX series is a little bit lost in the middle.
For this price, I would:
Of course, if you need the articulating screen, then the D5XXX series are the only Nikon DSLRs that allow you to see yourself, so they make a nice camera for self-portraits or videoing yourself (e.g. vlogs) and whatnot.