snerkler Publish time 2-12-2019 06:26:48

Yep the Nikon will still have more reach, although it will be 450mm not 480mm as Nikon APS-C has 1.5x crop not 1.6x like Canon 

snerkler Publish time 2-12-2019 06:26:48

This is why I suggested the A6000, for travel this can make quite a difference

                                                                        https://www.avforums.com/attachments/screenshot-2019-08-11-at-10-24-52-png.1182727/       


There is a DX version of the Nikon 70-300mm which is slightly smaller than the one pictured, but still as a package it's considerably bigger than the Nikon. Don't underestimate bulk when on travels, I actually take m4/3 on holiday as I don't want bulk.

Strobe Publish time 2-12-2019 06:26:48

Long time Nikon user here. The Nikon starter DSLR's are very good. Decent sensors akin to their more expensive siblings. For £300 for the D3500 and kit lens, I think you would be happy. Go for the VR starter lens (there is also a slightly cheaper non-VR version). As for telephoto zoom, I would go for the Nikon AF-P DX 70-300 f/4.5-6.3G ED VR. This would give you a decent two lens travel combo for around £600 which would fit in a moderate sized shoulder bag.

CanNik Publish time 2-12-2019 06:26:48

Canon, why, because canon have always had better low light capabilities that Nikon.

They are both starter cameras but laughably professionals would have killed for these specfs 15 years ago.

I am Nikon, and a pro sports photographer and hold a UK NUJ Press card, and have shot Nikon and Canon, I went Nikon simply because my first Pro camera was the Nikon F Photomic FTn Apollo, if I were just starting out with no loyalty it would be Canon

IF you buy a crop sensor I would NOT buy a crop lens, why, because if / when you decide you want FF you have to start again, I would get the body and a FF lens even from a good Pre owned retailer

snerkler Publish time 2-12-2019 06:26:48

I'm sorry to contradict but your first sentence is mostly incorrect. For a like for like body Nikon have had better low light performance than Canon for ages now.

Take a look at the cameras the OP was originally looking at, the Nikon D3400 low light score is 1192 vs the Canon 4000D which is 695, that's a hell of a difference. Even the newer Canon 2000D 'only' has a score of 1009, and that's 2 years newer than the D3400.

The only Canon that's better than the Nikon equivalent that I can think of off the top of my head is the 1DX-II, that's significantly better than the D5 

Nikon generally have better DR too. Purely on sensor, if I was starting out with no loyalty I'd be buying Nikon or Sony. However, we all know there's far more to it than the sensor 
Pages: 1 [2]
View full version: DSLR purchase advice