D7100 or D5300

[Slick2sick]

Hello guys im thinking to start photography as a hobby and save some money so in the summer i can purchase a camera a DSLR. Now since im a complete begginer i was looking at these 3 cameras D3300, D5300 and the D7100. Now i really dont know what to decide and buy again im a complete begginer the only camera i had were point and shoots or my smartphone camera so I really dont know what to decide
If i go for the d7100 i would prolly not be able to buy any gear whatsoever just the camera and the kit lens
If i go for the d5300 Maybe a tripod and a camera bag and few more accesories
If i go for the d3300 i can buy a Ipad mini 2 bcos iv been missing a personal tablet ,Accesories camera bag etc
Idk what u guys suggest me better get the d7100 and build up the gear as time passes or get d5300 or the d3300 :S I read that d3300 has no HDR and is missing few things on the d5300
Based on this http/snapsort.com/compare/Nikon-D3300-vs-Nikon-D5300
Keep in mind that my budget is around 600-700$ maybe theres a better solution pls write it down thanks

 

[martinch]

Have a read of Thom Hogan's reviews of the various models you listed: http/www.dslrbodies.com/cameras/current-nikon-dslr-reviews/ (his reviews are some of the best around)

The question is, if you're looking at going into photography as a hobby, what do you see yourself wanting to photograph? It will determine what other things you will be wanting to buy at the same time, or shortly after:
Landscape, close-up, or macro photography: tripod
Animals: at least a 300mm lens
Macro photography: "close up filter" with a ~150mm or longer lens, or macro lens (expensive)

etc.

I would also recommend saving some money in your budget for a good book or two on exposure and composition: http/www.dslrbodies.com/books/recommended-books/

 

[Slick2sick]

btw my type of photography maybe shooting a bird on the trees protraits and nature stuff And the d7100 with the 1.3x crop u can do 7fps shooting that is amazing and the d7100 looks more proffesional

 

[13thmonkey]

Get the best body you can, you can always buy another lens in 12 months, the body you should be considering as being a 5 year investment. You'll spend the first year just learning the camera, a single lens will be fine for that, then grow your lens collection over time. Be sure you want to stick with Nikon as it is probably a lifetime choice, it's a good choice, I'm a cannon person myself, but starting again Nikon would be on the cards.

 

[Slick2sick]

Yea i love the d7100 on everything but one of the things i love most is that 1.3x crop to the senser that can do 16 mp shots and get higher frame rates 7fps ^_^ Plus u can axtually profit extra MM on lenses I love that so much Do u think that the d7100 will be cheaper on summer when i ill be able to buy them ?

 

[13thmonkey]

there will be spot sales, just be ready.

 

[martinch]

btw my type of photography maybe shooting a bird on the trees protraits and nature stuff

IIRC, the 18-105mm kit lens is decent. It starts at 18mm, which is wide enough for landscapes or environmental shots. If you're looking at doing close-ups, you can get reasonable close-ups (but not macro). If you want to do tighter close-ups, you're better off getting a longer lens (55-300mm would be an obvious choice), and a +2 or +4 "close-up filter" - image quality won't be as good as with a proper macro lens, but it's noticeably cheaper!

I would note that birds are a challenging thing to photograph, and can require long lenses (especially small ones). For example, this sparrow was taken 7m away with a D300 and 500mm lens (300mm f/4 + 1.7x converter): http/martinch.zenfolio.com/animals/birds/sparrows/h462dd836#h462dd836

This duck was taken with a 70-300mm at 220mm, and at about the same distance: http/martinch.zenfolio.com/animals/birds/ducks/h35b7a319#h35b7a319

In comparison, this duck was ~15m away, taken with a 420mm lens (300mm f/4 + 1.4x converter) [and flash]: http/martinch.zenfolio.com/animals/birds/ducks/h1b918d57#h1b918d57

As a final comparison, these rooks were probably about 30m away, and taken with the same equipment as the previous duck: http/martinch.zenfolio.com/animals/birds/corvidae/h1a16a636#h1a16a636

I think the best budget long lens is the Nikon 55-300mm DX - Thom Hogan gives it a good review.

And the d7100 with the 1.3x crop u can do 7fps shooting that is amazing and the d7100 looks more proffesional

The D7100 is the better camera of the three (obviously) and will give you something to "grow into". It is also the most expensive, and noticeably so.

Note that if you're shooting "bursts" in RAW (NEF) format, you will run out of buffer space quickly (about 5-10 images), after which the camera will slow down whilst the images are written to the SD card.

I would note that it is rumoured that a D7200 is inbound soon - http/nikonrumors.com/2015/02/18/nikon-d7200-announcement-before-march-13.aspx/.

Don't know if that's any help..?

P.S. Try to avoid being sucked into buying lenses. Work out how to use the camera and compose images effectively, and work out what you want to photograph. Work out what is wrong with your current lenses (not long enough, doesn't focus close enough, etc), and what you want from a new one before buying a new one. Lenses are expensive and add up quick ...

P.P.S. Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina all make good lenses (especially their professional lines), which are generally cheaper than the equivalent Nikon lenses. The Tokina 100mm and Tamron 90mm macros are excellent optics, and are considerably cheaper than the also excellent Nikon 105mm macro (they're about the same price as the Nikon 85mm DX macro, but I believe, better).

 

[Slick2sick]

Thanks for your reply it took a lot of time to do it prolly.It helped and since the d7200 is just on the way coming up that means that the d7100 will be cheaper right ? In summer i ill prolly get it maybe 100$ cheaper than now right ?Thats a cool thing I can try to get a tripod extra battery and some other stuff . So u do suggest me to get d7100 instead of the others right ? Isthere any better camera than the d7100 on the same price on the canon side btw u can ssuggest or not ?

 

[13thmonkey]

it took me 3 years to buy a tripod, they are useful but not an essential.

 

[martinch]

Thanks for your reply it took a lot of time to do it prolly.

No prob

since the d7200 is just on the way coming up that means that the d7100 will be cheaper right?

It depends which direction Nikon go, to be honest - someone senior in Nikon has been quoted as saying they are working on a 7D Mk II successor. So there are a couple of options for the D7200:
(1) it iterates on the D7100 and sells at a similar price, depressing the new/used prices of D7100's
(2) Nikon add some extra bits to make it compete directly with the 7D Mk II, adjust the price upwards accordingly, and keep the D7100 around
(3) Nikon go with point 2 but price it more agressively and don't keep the D7100 around
(4) Nikon produce a D7200 in line with option 1, and also release a D400 to compete with the 7D Mk II

In summer i ill prolly get it maybe 100$ cheaper than now right ?Thats a cool thing

It's kinda hard to say, because camera prices fluctuate, as they are somewhat tied to the Yen (e.g. about 3 years ago, the cost of a new 70-200mm jumped from £1,200 to £1,500). Assuming there isn't any currency oddness, it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect the prices to slide downwards.

I can try to get a tripod extra battery and some other stuff.

The batteries are expensive, and if the battery life is anything like that of my D300, I'm not sure you'd need an extra one - I've yet to exhaust a fully-charge battery in a day of shooting (I might see around 10-15% usage after taking around 150-200 images). If you're doing any kind of photography under dim conditions (e.g. dawn/dusk landscapes, any kind of macro photography), I would highly recommend having a good tripod (Manfrotto make some good, relatively inexpensive, aluminium ones). Often it forcing you to work more slowly will make you take better images (e.g. it's a lot easier to check what's in the corners if the camera isn't moving slightly).

So u do suggest me to get d7100 instead of the others right?

It is the better of the three cameras you've listed. It is overkill for a beginner, and will give you plenty of room to "grow into", but is fairly unkind to your budget. A slightly left-field suggestion - have you considered looking to see if you can obtain a lightly-used one? It might save you some money, and let you pick up some extra accessories (I'm afraid I can't recommend any retailers, as I'm in the UK).

Isthere any better camera than the d7100 on the same price on the canon side btw u can ssuggest or not ?

I'm afraid the last time I looked at Canon was when the 20D was current - I ended up going with Nikon purely due to the Canon not fitting my hands, and preferring the ergonomics of the Nikon. Both companies make excellent cameras - just make sure you're happy with how they feel in your hands (a great camera isn't helpful if you find using it uncomfortable!).