Beginner Nikon Kit

Can't believe I am asking this question: My neighbor's son wants to buy a Nikon camera with good video capability. The budget is $500 tops.

 

Any recommendation? I read about the D3300 kit but review says the video is awful. Is this true?

How discerning are they of image quality for stills? And would they be comfortable buying used? Is low light use a priority?

 

Maybe one of Nikon's bridge style cameras would be suitable? The zoom reaches out to a 600mm eqivalent, and apart from the sound being a bit crappy the video is pretty good.

Total beginner. Not that discerning. I did talk with him about a bridge camera that can do video... Thanks!

Researching bridge cameras and it looks like the Panasonic Lumix FZ70 is probably the right one for him on balance considering function and price.

The Nikon D5300 kit is actually very good and just under $500. In fact I am now hoping he would opt for this one.

Nikon makes good still camera for the $500 range but for video you would do better checking out the Panasonic.

Panasonic make decent stuff, but check that the Aperture Priority mode has a proper aperture. A lot of cheaper P&S cameras these days have a fixed aperture and use an ND filter to fake an aperture change. It wouldn't bother a beginner, but if they want to progress and control depth-of-field the camera won't let them.

 

These "fake aperture" cameras usually offer only two aperture settings, rather than a range using the standard series of f/2.8, 4, 5.6, 8 etc.

Lots to learn on these lower-end kits. Now I am all for Panasonic Lumix FZ80 for the significant enhancements just at a slightly higher prices than the FZ70. Sounds like something I won't mind trying.

Nikon for stills and Panasonic for video, says me.

If it's primarily photos and some occassional video, the D3300 is actually great value for money, and if the D5300 fits the budget, it's a nice step up. If one wants good video and a DSLR, Canon to me seems the better choice though. If one isn't hung up on a DSLR, Panasonic as the others mentioned is probably the top choice the Sony A6000 isn't a bad choice either.

Mary, ask a carpenter about a basic table saw and he probably won't know much beyond the professional model he uses and the one he is looking forward to purchase. Had someone hand me a canon slr at the Kennedy space center this weekend and he told me what it was as he asked me to take a photo. I don't have a clue about it. I do know where to find the shutter button but he was using live view hand held. That was different.

My suggestion would be to get a used Nikon 1 V2. It does an amazing job with both still and video. With the addition of the FT-1 adapter, any F-series Nikon lens can be used with no loss of light. It has an amazing continuous shooting capability (5 fps, 15 fps, 30 fps, and 60 fps). The CX sensor (1") is noisy above ISO 800, so if you're looking for a low-light camera this isn't it. If you're looking to print large photos, this isn't your camera. If you like shooting concerts, this is MOST DEFINITELY your camera, because it doesn't look anything like a "professional" camera.

Thanks everyone. The problem is solved. He ended up buying an IPhone 7 and showed me some neat shots. I gave him some tips on composition and lighting and he was good to go. Thanks again.

Ah the wave of the future, the camera in the phone.

Yes, when excellence is just too much to ask for use the phone camera.

 

Somewhere in my travels--and sometime in the last 10 years or so--I read an interesting article about how technology has lowered our expectations. For example, in the 1960's-1990's if a regulated phone company offered the same quality of service as most mobile services provide today they would have been fined and, eventually, lost their local monopoly. Likewise, if any of the mainframe computer makers made an operating system with the bugs of Windows, they would have been banned from competing for any U.S. Government business.

 

Instead, we have lowered our expectations considerably and then "oooh" and "aaah" at all the things a mobile phone can do. I think the term the author re-cycled was "satisficing," because the new solution is satisfactory and it suffices until the next satisficing solution comes around to the market.

On an early spring trip to Yellowstone last year, I saw very few "cameras," per se, in use.

Phones and tablets were the image capture devices.

Phones I can sort of understand, but tablets seem very awkward....

I have seen some material shot with tablets and in favorable conditions the quality is great. Some tablets apparently shoot 4k video and hi-resolution stills.