Can anyone give me an opinion on this deal? Nikon D3300 w 18-55mm+55-200mm refurb$440

[Arkitech]

So I'm thinking of pulling the trigger on this camera. This will be my first DSLR and I'm looking to do some heavy shooting both for business and pleasure. I don't want to overspend on my first DSLR. I've read that the D3300 is a good entry point camera, so it seems like a good price for a manufacturer refurb DSLR. Also I thought this was an interesting artilcle on Nikon lenses (http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/cheapskate-lenses.htm). Anyone care to comment on if this a good route to get started?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-D3300...p_id=117&ipn=icep&afepn=5337259887&rmvSB=true

 

[Alienwho]

That's a fine camera, but I would recommend since you are new completely bypass DSLR and go straight to the future - mirrorless. Mirrorless cameras are going to do to DSLR what DSLR did to film. And the good news is they are smaller, lighter and cheaper to boot.

There is a killer deal happening on Sony A6000 right now - http://www.amazon.com/Sony-Alpha-In...&ie=UTF8&qid=1430420419&sr=1-1&keywords=a6000

Or you can go with micro 4/3 and get this great deal (this is the camera I'm using) http://www.buydig.com/shop/product....CJ&utm_medium=Affiliate&utm_placement=4485850 or get its big brother for another steal: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/searc...ra+Model_Olympus+E-M5&N=4288586281+4057922454

 

[CuriousMike]

You will be super happy with the D3300.
Also look at Cameta Camera; they extend the manufacturers warranty. I've had good luck with them.

http://www.cameta.com/Nikon-D3300-Digital-SLR-Camera-Body-Black-Factory-Refurbished-82766.cfm

I had the A6000 for a short period, and found the viewfinder to be worse than 1994 camcorder quality. The kit lens was meh at the wide end. It did focus well, and gave good photos at anything beyond the wide end. Being able to see the exposure adjust in realtime is a killer feature.

Micro 4/3 should be a consideration if you value size over ultimate potential for photo quality.

To be clear, the Sony APSC mirroless bodies are smaller. The lenses aren't any smaller than their DSLR brethren. Lighter, yes. Easier to carry? Not really.
The D3300 is pretty damn small.

http://camerasize.com/compare/#535,509

 

[Alienwho]

You will be super happy with the D3300.
Also look at Cameta Camera; they extend the manufacturers warranty. I've had good luck with them.

http://www.cameta.com/Nikon-D3300-Digital-SLR-Camera-Body-Black-Factory-Refurbished-82766.cfm

I had the A6000 for a short period, and found the viewfinder to be worse than 1994 camcorder quality. The kit lens was meh at the wide end. It did focus well, and gave good photos at anything beyond the wide end. Being able to see the exposure adjust in realtime is a killer feature.

Micro 4/3 should be a consideration if you value size over ultimate potential for photo quality.

To be clear, the Sony APSC mirroless bodies are smaller. The lenses aren't any smaller than their DSLR brethren. Lighter, yes. Easier to carry? Not really.
The D3300 is pretty damn small.

http://camerasize.com/compare/#535,509

I don't actually have the Sony so I can't speak for it and I'm sure your points are valid. I myself took the Micro Four Thirds route and have all but replaced my Nikon D3200 with the Olympus EPL-5. While the D3200 is very small for what it is it's night and day compared to the EPL5. The Micro Four Thirds lenses are significantly smaller and less expensive.

I'm not a pro or anything, just a hobbyist that still has a certain standard for quality and is still roped into taking family engagement photos/weddings/etc.

To the OP the reason why I personally phased out my humble DSLR kit for Micro Four Thirds: The technology behind them is way ahead of your Canikon stuff at a huge fraction of the price. My camera takes 8 shots per second in stunning clarity. The touch screen is amazing and you can actually take pictures just by touching the screen and the camera will automatically focus and snap a picture lightning quick. This is cool because say I need to give my camera to someone else to take a picture of my family, I can have the settings ready to go and give the camera to somebody and just say touch your finger to my eyes and hold your finger there for a second. Bam you've got a ton of pictures in perfect clarity and you can choose the one where your kid wasn't blinking because it took 10 pictures. These kinds of features combined with pictures that quality wise are just as good or better than anything I took with the D3200 and the light-weight easy to carry factor just make photography FUN again. All this for $300, sign me up!


I just mention the alternatives because there are countless people like the OP that want to take better pictures and assume their only choice is DSLR. In reality many people like him would be better served in the Micro four thirds realm but they simply haven't heard of it. In a few more years it's going to be fully mainstream and widely accepted whereas right now it's still flying slightly under the radar for most people.

 

[radhak]

Mike has covered it all - mirrorless promise more than they deliver. Their small size is no longer so with the lens attached, and their small sensor makes for a big difference in quality when compared with DSLRs.

That said, mirrorless have their place in the marketplace - definitely a step up from P&S.

OP, answer to your question - you will not go wrong with the D3300. It's an excellent camera and you are practically paying P&S price for it.

 

[EOM]

What kind of "heavy business shooting" are you doing?

$440 for a d3300 is a pretty good price with two lenses. Those aren't the greatest lenses but if this is your first dslr camera you'll get several months of use out of them while on the learning curve and depending on what you're trying to do they may work out perfectly. I started with the d3200 + 2 lens kit as well. i bought a few prime (single focal length) lenses about 6 months into owning my DLSR. It's been almost a year and a half and i'm looking to upgrade to full frame.