Nikon D3300 vs D5300

jammiedodger · Feb 12, 2015

Hi guys,

as the thread title suggests, I'm having trouble deciding between the two. I should mention this will be my first DSLR. Excited.

I'll be using it for product photography, the "against a white background" kinda stuff.

I don't really know enough about cameras to appreciate all the technical differences between the two, but understand some. Image sharpness will be important to me. Does one produce crisper images than the other? I would have thought the D5300 having more focal points, it would be easier to get sharper images from than the D3300. I would just say "shoot" and get the D5300, but it's considerably more expensive and for that price I would want weather sealing, which the the next model up has (the D7100?). So I'm thinking I will buy the D3300 then upgrade to the D7100 a couple of years down the line. I know I don't need weather sealing for indoors product photography, but I'm hoping I'll get more into amateur photography in the next few years. Having my first DSLR should help.

But if the D5300 would be considerably better in taking product shots than the D3300, then I would just rather get that in the first place. I've searched online for comparable images taken from both cameras of the same subject, same lighting, same setup, only the cameras changing, but found nothing.

Can anyone help?

Thanks.

P.s. Is there a lens anyone would recommend specifically for product photography? I'll be shooting medium sized products, the size of shoes.

goodguy · Feb 12, 2015

D3300 will be just fine for what you need, the D5300 will not offer any significant advantage over the D3300 in IQ (Image Quality).
Both excellent cameras and both offer roughly same IQ, low light performance.
More focus points the D5300 offers will come in handy in sports type shooting but not for what you need.
Product shooting usually means doing Manual Focus anyways!

As for proper lens, if tight on cash then you can get the Nikon 40mm Macro lens, good basic lens for what you need.

Neither camera or ANY camera for that matter will not produce good photos, you are the one with your skills that will do that, camera and lenses are only machines.
The better your skills are the better you results will be.
Skills is 95% important, gear is the other 5%
And it can take years to really be good so be patient.

Good luck.

Designer · Feb 12, 2015

jammiedodger said:
P.s. Is there a lens anyone would recommend specifically for product photography? I'll be shooting medium sized products, the size of shoes.

I don't know about product photography, but you're going to receive the standard 18-55mm zoom with either kit, so why not try that lens first to see if it works before buying another lens? IMO it will serve your needs.

ruifo · Feb 12, 2015

This is a great doubt to have! Two great cameras that you cannot go wrong with either of them.

I would say that if you're really thinking on a future upgrade (that means you're really interested in photography), to get either the D5200, the D5300, or the D5500 as your first DSLR. They will allow you a much better learning curve for a future upgrade. You have more auto-focus points, better functions to change ISO and aperture, a flip screen, etc...

Image quality wise, the D3200-D3300-D5200-D5300-D5500 share the same 24 mpix sensor, and all are really good. The D5200-D5300-D5500 can offer you better control of the camera, hence a better learning curve. The D3x00 series limit your ISO change to a full stop, and the D5x00 series opens this up to 1/3 of stop, for instance.

Coming from the D5200-D5300-D5500, in the future you could upgrade towards a D610, once it's full frame, or the rumored D7200, if you prefer to remain at crop frame sensors. But before that, concentrate in getting good lenses first. Lenses are always more important than cameras. In time, you will end up changing your camera, and keeping your lenses.

Here are my D5200 sample shots:
Nikon D5200 - an album on Flickr

ruifo · Feb 12, 2015

Regarding lenses, knowing your budget would help us to give suggestions. In general, these are very good lenses out there, having the D5300 as a reference:

Nikon AF-S DX 35mm f/1.8G [$200] - DX Lens
Nikon AF-S 50mm f/1.8G [$220] - DX/FX Lens
Nikon AF-S DX Micro 40mm f/2.8G [$280] - DX Lens
Nikon AF-S 85mm f/1.8G [$500] - DX/FX Lens
Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM Nikon [$520] - DX Lens
Nikon AF-S 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G ED [$750] - DX/FX Lens
Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM A Nikon [$800] - DX Lens

The Micro 40mm f/2.8G lens could be a great start. No zoom here, but it is very sharp, and it does macro photos too, what can be cool for product photography.

jammiedodger · Feb 12, 2015

Thank you so much for your replies.

Well, based on the advice here and after watching some Youtube vids, I think I've decided on the D3300. As someone pointed out, there hardly seems to be any difference in image quality and I was thinking about the focus points the wrong way. I also get to save some money, maybe put it towards the lens.

On to the lens, which is what I have to decide on now. Someone mentioned what my budget was, I'd say $100-250, although I'd prefer to keep it at the lower end.

Someone else also suggested I test the packaged lens first. I'm not sure how it is with you guys on the Americas, but I'm from the UK and I can purchase a body only without the lens.

While researching online, I've come across macro lenses as a good suggestion for product photography on several occasions, but a couple of questions regarding that:

Firstly, I'll be shooting medium sized objects such as handbags and shoes. Would a macro lens really be suitable for this size of product? I was under the impression that macro lenses were more suitable for smaller objects such as jewellery like earrings and rings.

Secondly, and I'll probably show how ignorant I am here, but I'm going to assume that the cheaper (or maybe all) macro lens do not zoom, thus shots have to be taken close-up. Whenever I've taken close-up product shots, I've encountered the barrelling or fish-eye problem where the image distorts making the left and right edges appear as if they are curving away, as if the image has been stuck on to a globe. I resolve this by moving my tripod further away and using the zoom which gives me a flat life-like image. I lose some image sharpness but I prefer it over a barrelled image. But with macro lenses I wouldn't be able to shoot from further away and end up having only barrelled images?

Thank you ruifo for the list of lenses. I'm checking out the first three (those within my budget or thereabouts) on Amazon and reading the reviews for each.

Once again, thank you all for your kind advice and I apologise I was not able to thank you all individually.

Many thanks.

ruifo · Feb 12, 2015

The 40mm macro lens above will not zoom, will do macro/close-up and also will do traditional field of view shot, at the 40mm range. Visit the Nikon Lens Simulator page, choose a DX format camera (D3000 series), and the 40mm lens/range (or any other DX format lens/range) to see how it goes.

Given your limited budget, I recommend you getting a traditional kit lens (AF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR), that will zoom between 18-55mm, together with an extension tube (when used with any lens, it converts this lens in a macro lens - see youtube videos about that for more info). I recommend one of the "Kenko Auto Extension Tubes" (options: 12, 20 & 36mm tubes) for Nikon DSLR. the higher the mm, the higher the macro capability added. You just mount the tube with the lens and teh D3300 body, and you can do some macro work with them together.

This way, you can keep you budget low by now, and save to upgrade in the future. Good luck.

anti00 · Mar 4, 2015

Hello, first post here, and new to DSLRs... and about a month late on this particular question. I'm wondering the same as far as the d5300 vs. the d3300, I'd primarily be capturing video, as such, I'm not super concerned about the AF. Since they use virtually the same sensor and use the same firmware, would there be any noticeable quality difference in video capture? I'd be post processing the footage, so I don't really care about all the bells and whistles of newer more expensive models, I'm just trying to "cut my teeth" as they say. I've read that the Canon t5i might be better for video, but the Nikon has a higher megapixel... and I'd like to save myself $200 or $300 out of the gates if I can! Thanks to any replies!

IronMaskDuval · Mar 4, 2015

In regards to sharpness, neither camera is going to be much more sharp than the other. It's up to your glass, and for sharpness, I would recommend the Nikon 60mm f/2.8 Micro. It's so sharp, it'll cut a steak if that's what you're taking a picture of. But if you're only going to use it for product photography now, a DSLR may be a bit much. You can buy a box kit with lights for less than $100 and use your iphone. With a bit of photoshop, you'll have web quality photos.

If you want to buy a camera now, I would suggest buying the D7000 from KEH. You can have one for under $500, and it'll perform in every situation that you will need it for. I have both full frame and crop sensors, and for the money the D7k is the best. Goodguy has seen my photos from a D7100, and I can assure you, it's not better than my D7k. And they both shoot very well. The D90 is great too for cheap, but it performs poorly in low light. The D7k does just enough, and with a speedlight, it'll do everything you will need it to do.

Invest in glass. If one day you start to book jobs, you can rent the camera body and have great glass ready to fire away with. Renting bodies is cheaper anyway. Your talent will eventually pay for a better body, but camera bodies are not going to get much better than what they are now. For Nikon crop sensors, the D7k was the line where things began to get gimmicky.

Don't get too absorbed in which body to buy, but don't buy the 3300 or 5300. If you're going to do something, do it right the first time. Get the D7k, and you'll have the quick controls of pro level cameras.

And did I mention? Invest in good glass.

IronMaskDuval · Mar 4, 2015

anti00 said:
Hello, first post here, and new to DSLRs... and about a month late on this particular question. I'm wondering the same as far as the d5300 vs. the d3300, I'd primarily be capturing video, as such, I'm not super concerned about the AF. Since they use virtually the same sensor and use the same firmware, would there be any noticeable quality difference in video capture? I'd be post processing the footage, so I don't really care about all the bells and whistles of newer more expensive models, I'm just trying to "cut my teeth" as they say. I've read that the Canon t5i might be better for video, but the Nikon has a higher megapixel... and I'd like to save myself $200 or $300 out of the gates if I can! Thanks to any replies!

1080p tvs are 2 megapixels.

anti00 · Mar 4, 2015

Is that to say that it doesn't really matter what camera I buy? Or that I should go with the Cannon... or the Nikon... at this entry-level price point?

ruifo · Mar 4, 2015

I'd go with the D5300, 1080/60p video and flip screen. Great for video.

anti00 · Mar 4, 2015

I appreciate the replies, thank you... I want to shoot at a traditional 24fps and I plan on using a tablet as a field monitor, so the articulated screen on the d5300 doesn't seem worth the extra money. I suppose that's the real thing I'm trying to get at, is if there's any real difference in video quality between the two.