[pres589]

Agreed that the D3xxx cameras are almost too dumbed down to be easy to use. You should have been able to figure out pretty fast that auto bracketing wasn't available. I used a D3500 for about 20 minutes once and everything seemed buried away from the user.

[clickclick]

I know that the K1000 has become a must-have cult, but that's extreme

LOL - given that it happened in '78, the guy who robbed me was ahead of his time!

[Serkevan]

Agreed that the D3xxx cameras are almost too dumbed down to be easy to use. You should have been able to figure out pretty fast that auto bracketing wasn't available. I used a D3500 for about 20 minutes once and everything seemed buried away from the user.

Yeah, the few times we've been asked about "good cameras to learn" we have always suggested older models from a higher shelf... a lightly used Nikon D7100 or D5300 will be a better learning platform than a new D3X00. Same goes for Canon, a 60D has a good enough sensor for most people while giving you so much more control than a 2000D or whatever number they are up to now.

[clickclick]

This thread started out well enough - not news or rumour, admittedly (hence why I've now moved it to the Photographic Industry forum)

BTW, thanks. Really wasn't sure where to place it and made a best guess.

[clickclick]

It is amazing what some people complain about. Some guy on the internet recently was complaining that the K-1 did not record full EXIF data when using old manual lenses.

I did not read the order as an order of merit - it looked arbitrary to me.

Yikes! Some people really can't connect the dots.

I also did not think of it as a ranking, but just an overview of what they liked and disliked. Think the K-70 should have made their entry level list though.

[Serkevan]

Yikes! Some people really can't connect the dots.

Of course they can't. The are using their Sonys on full auto mode. The camera does all the thinking

[normhead]

I've found myself in the same situation (or any other backlit environment); normally it takes me less time to give the e-dial a couple twirls than to set the camera to bracket If I'm on a tripod, different story, bracketing is more practical (particularly if I'm going to stitch later).

I have bracketing programmed onto a User setting. And I made the mistake of bragging "Look you can do this with a single push of the button."

---------- Post added 02-24-20 at 10:16 AM ----------

Agreed that the D3xxx cameras are almost too dumbed down to be easy to use. You should have been able to figure out pretty fast that auto bracketing wasn't available. I used a D3500 for about 20 minutes once and everything seemed buried away from the user.

She said "the manual is in the menu's" Have you any idea how hard it is to flip through a manual one tiny screen at a time?

[pres589]

Yeah, the few times we've been asked about "good cameras to learn" we have always suggested older models from a higher shelf... a lightly used Nikon D7100 or D5300 will be a better learning platform than a new D3X00. Same goes for Canon, a 60D has a good enough sensor for most people while giving you so much more control than a 2000D or whatever number they are up to now.

My sister is in the crop Canon ecosystem and next time we talk cameras I'm going to suggest she move from her existing SL1 to the 77D based mostly on how it seems to be just as good as their newest XXD EOS models as far as high-ISO noise. This is something she's complained about with her existing camera. At this point 77D's on the used market seem like pretty good value for money. Agreed that a D7100 would be my preference, used, over a similarly priced new D3xxx. That said, I rarely handle cameras that I don't already own, so I don't know if the usability/ergonomics of the Nikons is that much better at higher spec, and the same with Canon's. Maybe I have Pentax brain at this point and would have a hard time adjusting.

[Serkevan]

My sister is in the crop Canon ecosystem and next time we talk cameras I'm going to suggest she move from her existing SL1 to the 77D based mostly on how it seems to be just as good as their newest XXD EOS models as far as high-ISO noise. This is something she's complained about with her existing camera. At this point 77D's on the used market seem like pretty good value for money. Agreed that a D7100 would be my preference, used, over a similarly priced new D3xxx. That said, I rarely handle cameras that I don't already own, so I don't know if the usability/ergonomics of the Nikons is that much better at higher spec, and the same with Canon's. Maybe I have Pentax brain at this point and would have a hard time adjusting.

I handle both my K-1 and, sometimes, the lady's Canon 6D. The Canon is clearly a lower-tier model; there is no EV button for starters. The dumbed down 'simplified' controls have given *both* of us a couple headaches...

From what I've seen, the D7X00 series has a front dial and a bunch of extra controls easily accessible - that alone makes it a MUCH better option.

[BigMackCam]

My sister is in the crop Canon ecosystem and next time we talk cameras I'm going to suggest she move from her existing SL1 to the 77D based mostly on how it seems to be just as good as their newest XXD EOS models as far as high-ISO noise. This is something she's complained about with her existing camera. At this point 77D's on the used market seem like pretty good value for money. Agreed that a D7100 would be my preference, used, over a similarly priced new D3xxx. That said, I rarely handle cameras that I don't already own, so I don't know if the usability/ergonomics of the Nikons is that much better at higher spec, and the same with Canon's. Maybe I have Pentax brain at this point and would have a hard time adjusting.

I'm kind of surprised that your sister isn't happy with the SL1's noise performance. At the same physical reproduction dimensions - looking at DPR's studio shot comparison in "Comp" mode - I'd say there's less than one stop difference between the SL1 and the Pentax K-3 (in favour of the K-3), even at ISO 3200 or 6400. That's pretty impressive considering the release date of the SL1, its entry level status and how much it cost.

The SL1 is a cute little camera. I'm not a Canon guy, but I tried one at my local big electronics retailer, and I rather liked it... Very small and light for a DSLR, but pretty nice to use considering how few controls it has...

[normhead]

I'm kind of surprised that your sister isn't happy with the SL1's noise performance. At the same physical reproduction dimensions - looking at DPR's studio shot comparison in "Comp" mode - I'd say there's less than one stop difference between the SL1 and the Pentax K-3 (in favour of the K-3), even at ISO 3200 or 6400. That's pretty impressive considering the release date of the SL1, its entry level status and how much it cost.

The SL1 is a cute little camera. I'm not a Canon guy, but I tried one at my local big electronics retailer, and I rather liked it... Very small and light for a DSLR, but pretty nice to use considering how few controls it has...

And the K-3 is about a stop less than the K-5 or K-1 or K-P. You're picking on the weak link.

The K-3 was delayed 6 months while they tried to get the noise and cross talk under control, and they still never made it back to K-5 spec.

[luftfluss]

And the K-3 is about a stop less than the K-5..

People say this, but personally I've not found it to be the case. When I downsize a 24MP K-3 II pic to match my 16MP K-5 II, I find the noise performance pretty much the same.

[BigMackCam]

And the K-3 is about a stop less than the K-5 or K-1 or K-P. You're picking on the weak link.

The K-3 was delayed 6 months while they tried to get the noise and cross talk under control, and they still never made it back to K-5 spec.

People say this, but personally I've not found it to be the case. When I downsize a 24MP K-3 II pic to match my 16MP K-5 II, I find the noise performance pretty much the same.

Viewed side-by-side at 100% reproduction, I'd agree that my K-3 images are just a little bit noisier than those from my K-5... But down-sampled to the same physical dimensions, I don't see a significant difference between the two (not saying it isn't there - just that I don't see it as significant).

Member @kh1234567890 did some interesting analysis into K-5 and K-3 images using RawDigger (see this post and responses from me over the next couple of pages). It seems there's mandatory noise reduction applied to the K-5's raw files from ISO 1250 - which is interesting, because I recall our site review of the K-3 mentioning that it was a bit noisier than the K-5 after ISO 800. The K-3 also applies mandatory noise reduction to raw files, but not until ISO 3200.

Going back to the Canon SL1, the reason I was fairly impressed (not "blown away", understand... just "pleasantly surprised") was that it made a decent fist of things when compared to the much higher-end K-3. I hadn't expected that at all...

[lesmore49]

I'm fairly good at whipping through the menus on the monitors on my K5, K1, GR ll...but I still use my printed manual that came with all three of these cameras...on a fairly regular basis.

However, my Canon G 12...didn't come with a printed manual, only a computer disc...which drove me 'nuts'.

The dealer said well Canon doesn't make printed manuals anymore, just the CD disc and why don't I just carry a laptop with me to access the disc manual. I indicated that that doesn't work for me, as I do a lot of outdoor photography and I don't carry my laptop with me, but I do carry the owner's manual in a pocket in my camera case...for quick...and easy reference.

I finally contacted Canon HQ and complained about it...although saying other than that I liked the G12. Canon was very good, indicated that they could send me a photocopy of the previous model, the G11, which was essentially the same as the G12...G12 has a few added features. That was a solution that worked fine for me, I still carry the copy in my small Canon slingbag (LowePro) for ready reference.

But I do like the small owner's manual that Ricoh Pentax provide with new cameras. The print manual with both a good table of contents and Index...works very well...for me.

[normhead]

People say this, but personally I've not found it to be the case. When I downsize a 24MP K-3 II pic to match my 16MP K-5 II, I find the noise performance pretty much the same.

One of the reasons for buying the K-3 was more ability to crop. If you crop a K-3 image to 16 MP (taken at 1600 ISO) , and compare it to an uncropped 16 MP image, you're going to see a difference. I didn't get exactly what i was hoping for. If I shoot the K-1 with crop lens the useful area is usually between 28 and 32 MP and cropped to 16 MP will have K-5 noise but more resolution. That's what I was hoping for with the K-3.