Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Nikon D3100 or D5100 ??

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

Leave a Comment
    • «
    • 1
    • »
    ThomasRichards_Photography

    I am a teenage photographer looking to buy my first DSLR and didnt know which one to go for?
    The Nikon D5100 with the kit lens or the D3100 with a few more lenses and accessories.

    Need help. thanks!

    Sponsored Links
    Sponsored Links 
    17 May 2012 - 5:07 PM

    Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

    Carabosse
    Carabosse e2 Member 1139395 forum postsCarabosse vcard England269 Constructive Critique Points
    17 May 2012 - 5:15 PM

    Hi Thomas......... what do you currently use? Bit surprised you don't already use a DSLR/CSC in view of the professional work you seem to do, including weddings! Smile

    tr.jpg

    ThomasRichards_Photography

    Thanks for that comment. I currently use a bridge camera. The Fuji S2950. Really want a DSLR though.

    Carabosse
    Carabosse e2 Member 1139395 forum postsCarabosse vcard England269 Constructive Critique Points
    17 May 2012 - 5:25 PM

    I'm intrigued - do you actually do weddings with the bridge camera?

    Anyway, to answer your question: lenses are usually a better investment. You will change your camera body (probably) far more often than your lenses. HTH. Smile

    youmightlikethis
    youmightlikethis e2 Member 121010 forum postsyoumightlikethis vcard Scotland
    17 May 2012 - 5:27 PM

    why not look at 3200

    darranl
    darranl  5318 forum posts England
    17 May 2012 - 5:33 PM

    As a professional it may be worthwhile removing the out of focus images from your photo collection.

    puertouk
    puertouk  21063 forum posts United Kingdom17 Constructive Critique Points
    17 May 2012 - 6:08 PM

    I am somewhat puzzled that a beginner runs a photographic business and would like to know what camera to purchase, both not really suitable for professional photography. I would say a minimum requirement for this type of work would be the Canon EOS 5D MK II, maybe the MK III or the new Nikon D800/D800E. If you are starting out and think it's a matter of taking a few shots etc, think again, as wedding photography is specialised and takes a long time to get it right. Get this wrong while taking someones wedding photo's could get you in deep water. If you are a beginner, as you say you are, I suggest going to a specialist wedding photographer and asking him/her if you can go along and to weddings to see what they do and maybe if you're lucky, they will teach you at the same time.
    Stephen

    puertouk
    puertouk  21063 forum posts United Kingdom17 Constructive Critique Points
    17 May 2012 - 6:16 PM

    I've had a quick look on your site and I think you ought to re-evaluate calling yourself professional. Your wedding images are not professional quality unfortunately. Sorry
    Stephen

    Jestertheclown
    17 May 2012 - 6:20 PM

    Going off at a tangent, in that advert that CB's found; there's no need for an apostrophe after "Richards."

    Sinth
    Sinth e2 Member 858 forum postsSinth vcard United Kingdom
    17 May 2012 - 7:25 PM

    Bit of a troll thread imo and even thinking about weddings being a teenager with a sub standard setup backs that statement up but can I stick up for bridge camera`s, not even recent one`s?

    I am certainly not on the look out for weddings or bar mitzvah`s but I recently sold a Panasoninc FZ30 bridge camera which was circa 2006?
    The noise was horrendous even at iso 200 but the actual image was spot on, the Leica lens was very nice. Thinking about it now that was the best thing I ever bought because not only did it teach me about apertures and shutter speeds it also taught me about post processing to achieve an image that was presentable.

    There is always a positive out of a negative (no pun). Must stop doing that.

    Anyway to the OP why not upload some pics and we can see what DSLR you may require, entry/mid/high end.
    The workman should never blame his tools, unless the battery runs out.....
    Stu

    AndyMurdo
    AndyMurdo  833 forum posts United Kingdom6 Constructive Critique Points
    17 May 2012 - 10:32 PM

    Thomas, Given the comments above I would set your sights a little lower than turning pro at the moment, I would favour going for the D3100 and a lens or two, (just get the best you can afford on the lens front, bearing in mind the comments else where, that is about changing bodies more frequently. If your lenses are too low a quality you will have to upgrade them too when you get a better body!) If you can't reach that, then maybe settle for just a D3100/D5100 body and partner it with something like the Sigma standard Zoom, they do a kit lens replacement that's a cracker, but you will have to check the equipment reviews (some on this site) for more details on the righy lens, then build up as you canafford/need. the other option is to go for a decent second hand camera/lens Like a D200, D90 or even a Canon 50/60D, target camera shops for this like LCE, as you will get some back-up with this route and useful advice. the thing with second hand to watch out for and stay away from, is ex pro equipment as it usually suffers a tharshing! Then get some proper training, certainly photographic, but if you want to go pro you will also need to have plenty of business knowhow. I've Known good photographers who fail as pro's because of the lack of the latter and average snappers, good with business skills, who do quite well thank you.
    Regards Andy M

    NEWDIGIT
    NEWDIGIT  3401 forum posts United Kingdom
    18 May 2012 - 1:53 PM

    To be fair to Thomas I dont see the words Professional Photographer in his add.
    A true Professional would I suggest not even get out of bed for Thomas's prices.
    The so called professional that my daughters, in laws, hired for her wedding (ceremony only) cost them 2000, just as well I had a spare SD card as he didnt I sold him my spare 100 it was only a bog standard scandisk 4gb (nice profit) his shots were very amateur to the point that the final payment was refused and I ended up making up various albums from mine and other guests shots.
    NOTE I have been told he has since gone of the radar.

    If Thomas is serious about going Pro for weddings then I would suggest seriously upping the budget D800 Nikon 50mm 1.4 for beautiful portraits, Sigma 10-20 for group work, plus something like a 30-200 2.8 for candid shots not forgetting a speedlight for in chuch (when allowed and always ask first) and in the reception venue.
    Going Pro is expensive not just the camera equipment but also fast PC upmarket monitor printer etcetc
    Many GOOD photographers have tryed going pro and failed more so now that we are in digital where it seems a sound knowledge of processing seems to be taking over from skill with camera

    Carrera_c
    Carrera_c  5254 forum posts United Kingdom3 Constructive Critique Points
    18 May 2012 - 4:00 PM

    Thomas, I think it's a bit too soon for you to put yourself forward for pro photography. I would recommend that you take a step back and evaluate things with a level head. Please don't read all the above posts and just get angry, some may sound blunt and harsh but it really is for your own benefit. As soon as you start asking to be paid for your work people expect a certain standard and you can get into a lot of trouble if your work falls short.

    I would recommend spending a few years building your photographic ability before looking at turning pro. Use this website, post up some of your work for crits, look at college courses or bespoke portrait/wedding courses, join a local camera club, and most importantly, practice.

    When you are ready you will know yourself that the D3100 and D5100 aren't up to the job, plain and simple. Wedding photography required a camera that can perform well at high ISO - for situations where the lighting isn't great and your not allowed to use flash. I'd say the minimum you could get away with using would be a D300 or D7000 level camera. Next would be the lenses, again you'll want them to be able to perform well in low light, this means F2.8 zooms and fast primes become your best friends. Then when you are able to use flash you have to know how to use it, using the on board flash will be the death of your images, learn how to use off camera and hot shoe flash effectively.

    All the best for the future, I hope you take the constructive points from these posts and use it to create a plan for the years to come.



    Quote: To be fair to Thomas I dont see the words Professional Photographer in his add.

    If you're taking payment, then you are seen by your clients as a professional. To be fair to Thomas, he does cover his current situation in his About page, but I would recommend waiting and developing your talent before trying to launch a business.

    Last Modified By Carrera_c at 18 May 2012 - 4:07 PM
    User_Removed
    22 May 2012 - 5:41 AM

    Whether or not this is a troll thread, the basic answer to the basic question probably has to be "neither" now that the D3200 has appeared on the scene.

    MattB1987
    MattB1987 e2 Member 2407 forum postsMattB1987 vcard England
    22 May 2012 - 6:52 AM

    I second the D3200, I'm getting one as a second body to my D7000, specs look amazing for the price plus its new tech so with have more longevity than the D3100/D5100 for not really any more money.
    Matt

    • «
    • 1
    • »

    Add a Comment

    You must be a member to leave a comment

    Username:
    Password:
    Remember me:
    Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.