Upgrading from a Nikon D3100 to a D3500 good choice?

enfant terrible

Hi guys,

Wife looking to upgrade her camera, would the Nikon D3500 be a good choice?
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-D3500-AF-P-18-55-Kit/dp/B07GZP6JPG?psc=1&SubscriptionId=AKIAI2TWEDSMJWGPXOQQ&tag=camelcamelcam-21&linkCode=xm2&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=B07GZP6JPG

She mainly uses her camera for family events such as weddings, birthdays etc.

magicbastarder

first question - what is it that she expects to get from upgrading the camera, or what is it that she finds most limiting in her camera?

Muppet Man

magicbastarder wrote: »

first question - what is it that she expects to get from upgrading the camera, or what is it that she finds most limiting in her camera?

I bought the D3500 about 2 weeks ago. I know nothing or very little about cameras, but very very happy with it... the auto mode is basically point and shoot and the results are very very good in all types of light. Takes 1080p video too and you can send pix to you phone via Bluetooth.

Muppet man

enfant terrible

magicbastarder wrote: »

first question - what is it that she expects to get from upgrading the camera, or what is it that she finds most limiting in her camera?

Thanks for the reply.

She says the resolution or detail in the camera she has now is not great.

Would the newer camera be much better?

wonski

enfant terrible wrote: »

Thanks for the reply.

She says the resolution or detail in the camera she has now is not great.

Would the newer camera be much better?

Is it the camera, or the lens that is an issue here?

If she takes photos indoors she will certainly notice an improvement, just better to get the facts right

magicbastarder

the resolution in the camera she has is pretty good - 14 megapixel, vs. the 24MP in the 3500.
usually, the main difference you'll find between different generations of cameras is ability to cope with low light.

where i'm coming from is - usually the camera is more capable than the photographer (and i very definitely include myself in this), and there is a danger that there's an expectation that a new camera will be an answer, whereas often the answer is in a change in technique or an associated piece of equipment, e.g. a new lens.

my DSLR is over ten years old, and the only real impetus i would have to change it is the low light performance i mentioned above.

enfant terrible

wonski wrote: »

Is it the camera, or the lens that is an issue here?

She says its the camera, the lens she has is Nikon DX SWM VR Aspherical 0.28/0.92ft

enfant terrible

magicbastarder wrote: »

the resolution in the camera she has is pretty good - 14 megapixel, vs. the 24MP in the 3500.
usually, the main difference you'll find between different generations of cameras is ability to cope with low light.

where i'm coming from is - usually the camera is more capable than the photographer (and i very definitely include myself in this), and there is a danger that there's an expectation that a new camera will be an answer, whereas often the answer is in a change in technique or an associated piece of equipment, e.g. a new lens.

my DSLR is over ten years old, and the only real impetus i would have to change it is the low light performance i mentioned above.

Would 14MP vs 24MP not be much of a jump in resolution?

Would getting a new lens improve detail or is that just down to camera?

magicbastarder

that appears to be a kit lens (i think). i.e. the 'catch all' lens that's shipped with most entry level nikon DSLRs.
it's very definitely one of the first things people upgrade from.

wonski

I actually edited my post above to add the indoor photos/low light part.

As the other poster said the sensor would be still OK to handle most well lit scenes especially if coupled with good lens.

If however it is used with 3.5-5.6 it might struggle and bringing the iso up might only make things worse sometimes.

Lens is one of the aspects of photography often not taken as seriously as it should be when buying.

Yet very important as far as sharpness and low light performance goes.

Saying that I would not recommend getting an expensive lens just to check if that's the issue here, but just deciding on both lens and body before pulling the trigger.

magicbastarder

enfant terrible wrote: »

Would 14MP vs 24MP not be much of a jump in resolution?

the 'standard' resolution for printing photos is 300dpi (i.e. dots, or pixels, per inch).
at this resolution, the 3100 would print a 15" x 10" print.
the 3500 would print a 20" x 13" print - i.e. only 25% longer per side.

that would be on good quality paper, you would get away with a much lower resolution (i.e. higher print size) on something like canvas.

is she getting blurry photos?

wonski

enfant terrible wrote: »

Would 14MP vs 24MP not be much of a jump in resolution?

Would getting a new lens improve detail or is that just down to camera?

Combination of both I would say.

However 14mp is just fine. Don't get into the megapixel contest as often the size of the sensor will matter more.

Google d3100 vs d3500 and there is a good comparison website that will give you an idea.

3100 will lose on all fronts, but that's because it is older design, but I believe still capable of taking great shots if the light is right. If however the low light is an issue then upgrade to a newer model and light lens (Sigma and Tamron have some decent, cheaper alternatives to original Nikkor lenses) makes sense.

I upgraded from Nikon d40x to d5300 only a year or two ago, and that really made a difference, yet d40x was still capable of doing fine outdoor.

The difference was huge, though.

enfant terrible

wonski wrote: »

Combination of both I would say.

However 14mp is just fine. Don't get into the megapixel contest as often the size of the sensor will matter more.

Google d3100 vs d3500 and there is a good comparison website that will give you an idea.

3100 will lose on all fronts, but that's because it is older design, but I believe still capable of taking great shots if the light is right. If however the low light is an issue then upgrade to a newer model and light lens (Sigma and Tamron have some decent, cheaper alternatives to original Nikkor lenses) makes sense.

I upgraded from Nikon d40x to d5300 only a year or two ago, and that really made a difference, yet d40x was still capable of doing fine outdoor.

The difference was huge, though.

Would the lens that comes with the d3500 be ok or would that need to be upgraded too?

AF-P 18–55 Non VR Kit

enfant terrible

magicbastarder wrote: »

the 'standard' resolution for printing photos is 300dpi (i.e. dots, or pixels, per inch).
at this resolution, the 3100 would print a 15" x 10" print.
the 3500 would print a 20" x 13" print - i.e. only 25% longer per side.

that would be on good quality paper, you would get away with a much lower resolution (i.e. higher print size) on something like canvas.

is she getting blurry photos?

Not sure on blurry photos will find out.

magicbastarder

the very first thing i would suggest - and this is hackneyed advice, but for a good reason - is to consider the nikon 35mm f1.8 lens.
to explain, the f1.8 in the designation is primarily about how wide the opening in the lens is to let light through to the sensor. this means you can use it in lower light, but also has an effect on the photo quality itself.

for various reasons, the f1.8 means it'll let in four times as much light as the f3.5 of the lens that she has. so where she might be taking photos in low light which are coming out blurry on her existing lens (say at 1/15th of a second), the 35mm lens at f1.8 would take those same photos at 1/60th of a second, thus 'freezing' the subject (and shake from her hands) better, and resulting in crisper pictures.

the second effect is a more aesthetic one - the f1.8 means that photos have a shallower depth of field - i.e. the parts of the photo which are out of focus will be even more out of focus. despite this sounding like a negative, it's much better at reducing the effect of distracting backgrounds.

the lens that comes with the 3500 would probably be as close to identical to the one that came with the 3100, as to make no difference. lenses evolve more slowly than cameras.

magicbastarder

this is an example of the effect of differing depth of field:

Alanstrainor

I would be worried that she would notice little difference between the old and the new camera. They are both entry level cameras, with similar quality glass. The sensor in the newer one is considerably better given it is much newer, but this is not where most people see a difference imo.

Things like 'improving detail' is hard to answer, but I would be almost certain this is an issue with focusing, or improper usage, such as shooting too slow.

In terms of shooting inside, or in low light a lens like this is what she needs:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-DX-35-Lens/dp/B00OH4Y15U/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3I4V2QF42U921&keywords=nikon+35mm+f1.8&qid=1574207094&sprefix=nikon+3%2Caps%2C138&sr=8-1

It has a large aperture which allows a lot of light into the camera.

Hopefully I'm not confusing things, I just think moving from one entry level to the newer version of the same entry level camera is just asking for disappointment. Most would move up to the next tier of camera in a manufacturers range, even the D5600 would be a step up. A touch screen, face detection with wifi for easy transfer.

enfant terrible

magicbastarder wrote: »

the very first thing i would suggest - and this is hackneyed advice, but for a good reason - is to consider the nikon 35mm f1.8 lens.
to explain, the f1.8 in the designation is primarily about how wide the opening in the lens is to let light through to the sensor. this means you can use it in lower light, but also has an effect on the photo quality itself.

for various reasons, the f1.8 means it'll let in four times as much light as the f3.5 of the lens that she has. so where she might be taking photos in low light which are coming out blurry on her existing lens (say at 1/15th of a second), the 35mm lens at f1.8 would take those same photos at 1/60th of a second, thus 'freezing' the subject (and shake from her hands) better, and resulting in crisper pictures.

the second effect is a more aesthetic one - the f1.8 means that photos have a shallower depth of field - i.e. the parts of the photo which are out of focus will be even more out of focus. despite this sounding like a negative, it's much better at reducing the effect of distracting backgrounds.

the lens that comes with the 3500 would probably be as close to identical to the one that came with the 3100, as to make no difference. lenses evolve more slowly than cameras.

Alanstrainor wrote: »

I would be worried that she would notice little difference between the old and the new camera. They are both entry level cameras, with similar quality glass. The sensor in the newer one is considerably better given it is much newer, but this is not where most people see a difference imo.

Things like 'improving detail' is hard to answer, but I would be almost certain this is an issue with focusing, or improper usage, such as shooting too slow.

In terms of shooting inside, or in low light a lens like this is what she needs:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-DX-35-Lens/dp/B00OH4Y15U/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3I4V2QF42U921&keywords=nikon+35mm+f1.8&qid=1574207094&sprefix=nikon+3%2Caps%2C138&sr=8-1

It has a large aperture which allows a lot of light into the camera.

Hopefully I'm not confusing things, I just think moving from one entry level to the newer version of the same entry level camera is just asking for disappointment. Most would move up to the next tier of camera in a manufacturers range, even the D5600 would be a step up. A touch screen, face detection with wifi for easy transfer.

Cheers lads that's great advice.

She seems to want a new camera just to have a new camera so will get her that but will also get the better lens so the upgrade was not in vein

vintagecosmos

+1 on the 1.8f lens. Totally different experience. Also encourages one of the best tips I ever got in photography....zoom with your feet!

Alanstrainor

enfant terrible wrote: »

Cheers lads that's great advice.

She seems to want a new camera just to have a new camera so will get her that but will also get the better lens so the upgrade was not in vein

It might be worth getting the D3500 without the kit lens, or as 'body only' as the kit lens will be almost identical to the one she has. Especially considering you're buying the 35mm F1.8. That new lens will be a game changer.

enfant terrible

Alanstrainor wrote: »

It might be worth getting the D3500 without the kit lens, or as 'body only' as the kit lens will be almost identical to the one she has. Especially considering you're buying the 35mm F1.8. That new lens will be a game changer.

Only place I can find body only is here, anyone heard of this site?
https://www.bristolcameras.co.uk/p-nikon-d3500-body-black.htm

Does the Nikon 35 mm/F 1.8 AF-S G NIKKOR DX-35 mm Lens definitely fit the d3500? It says on amazon "We're not sure this item fits your NIKON D3500"

It says it does fit the D3100.

CelticRambler

Just one other thing to consider: has she ever cleaned the sensor? If she's only used the original lens, chances are the sensor never had the opportunity to get dirty, but if she's had the lens on and off several times over the years, there could be dust on it that's reducing the quality of the pictures.

wonski

enfant terrible wrote: »

Only place I can find body only is here, anyone heard of this site?
https://www.bristolcameras.co.uk/p-nikon-d3500-body-black.htm

Does the Nikon 35 mm/F 1.8 AF-S G NIKKOR DX-35 mm Lens definitely fit the d3500? It says on amazon "We're not sure this item fits your NIKON D3500"

It says it does fit the D3100.

All Af-s lenses will work.

Actually make sure it is Af-S lens as other vertions will not be fully compatible with 3500 (no auto focus).

enfant terrible

wonski wrote: »

All Af-s lenses will work.

Actually make sure it is Af-S lens as other vertions will not be fully compatible with 3500 (no auto focus).

This says Af-S so is definitely compatible with the D3500?

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-DX-35-Lens/dp/B00OH4Y15U/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3I4V2QF42U921&keywords=nikon+35mm+f1.8&qid=1574207094&sprefix=nikon+3%2Caps%2C138&sr=8-1

magicbastarder

it'll work fine with that camera.

Alanstrainor

enfant terrible wrote: »

This says Af-S so is definitely compatible with the D3500?

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-DX-35-Lens/dp/B00OH4Y15U/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3I4V2QF42U921&keywords=nikon+35mm+f1.8&qid=1574207094&sprefix=nikon+3%2Caps%2C138&sr=8-1

This lens will definitely work, autofocus and everything will work without issue. Here's a link showing this (PDF at the end):

https://www.nikonusa.com/en/learn-and-explore/a/tips-and-techniques/which-nikkor-lens-type-is-right-for-your-dslr.html

wonski

There is d3500 for 299 pounds on amazon now. It is with 18-55 lens, but if you can't find body only deal elsewhere just buy it with the lens and don't use it. Will be hard to sell, though, but who knows.

magicbastarder

again, unless she's taking low light photos without flash, the photos will pretty much be indistinguishable between the two cameras (on the same lens)

rock22

I don't want to confuse things even more, but if your wife wants to upgrade her camera then she will likely be disappointed with the D3500. It is simple the Latest version of the camera she has already.
She may be thinking of the D5xxx or D7xxx series cameras as a more significant upgrade. Eg D5600 or D7500.

dory

I would agree with all the above. You won't notice much of a difference. I went from Sony A5000 to A6500 and even then it took a while, and a new lens to really notice the different (and shooting different scenarios). I would recommend trying her on a few new lenses, new tripod, new filters and then if she really needs it a new camera.

thedarkroom

enfant terrible wrote: »

Hi guys,

Wife looking to upgrade her camera, would the Nikon D3500 be a good choice?
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-D3500-AF-P-18-55-Kit/dp/B07GZP6JPG?psc=1&SubscriptionId=AKIAI2TWEDSMJWGPXOQQ&tag=camelcamelcam-21&linkCode=xm2&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=B07GZP6JPG

She mainly uses her camera for family events such as weddings, birthdays etc.

We’ve been using the D3100 cameras for several years now with students as part of a photography module. They are very good cameras but you will find a noticeable difference if moving to the D3500.
The low light ability is greatly improved and certainly would be at least a two stop improvement. The lens is also much better. The older lens is optically ok but over time, being all plastic mechanisms, start to rattle. Buy the camera kit, it’s well worth it.
The Amazon price is £299. I don’t know how that translates to Euro but the Amazon exchange rate isn’t good. I would recommend buying from a shop instead. If you live in Dublin, then Bermingham Cameras have it for €379. If you have any problems then you have somewhere to go for repairs or help with any of the controls. They also do photo walks which would be good for meet-ups and mini tutorials. If outside of Dublin they do mail order but I have no idea what their delivery charge is. Also, if outside Dublin, McCauley’s do great prices on cameras and they have good knowledgeable staff. The one in Redmond Square in Wexford is highly recommended.
Another poster referred to the D7500. That’s a great camera but is a lot more expensive. Searching around will find deals but still expect to pay around €1200 with the 18-140 lens. Well worth it if it’s within your budget. Its focussing system is more advanced and compatible with a greater range of lenses such as the older D lenses.
Good luck with your purchase. Your wife won’t be disappointed with the D3500 with the new kit lens if you decide on that one.