What to buy between Nikon D3300, Sony A58, Sony a3500, Sony A5000?

Question

There are three types. DSLR (flapping up Mirror), Mirrorless, Fixed Mirror (Translucent Mirror)
Nikon D3300 feels good when i hold it, it’s menu is simple, but because it’s with moving mirror i can’t see actual setting affecting on image on lcd when Live view is ON just before taking picture, auto focus is not in control when mirror is up. There is no low pass (i don’t know it really increase picture sharpness but sony has)
Sony A58 shows actual effects of setting on image with live view ON just before taking photo and in EVF also, it has 16000 iso compare with nikon d3300 12,500 iso. But because it has fixed mirror light has to pass through that to image sensor and so image sensor gets less light comparative to mirrorless and flapping up mirror
I can’t ignore nikon because i feel quality when i hold it comparative to Sony.
I can’t ignore sony because i can see effect of image settings on Live View before taking photo.

I am confused between above models can anybody tell me why nikon d3300 is best from Sony A58 or Sony a3000 or Sony a5000 regardless of number of lens availability option

Answer 1

Anyone who knows the basics of exposure would not put that much importance on being able to see the image in Live View as it would be. Because of the LCD screen showing only a JPEG, you can't always ensure that you're getting things right just by looking at the LCD screen. Plus, the screen will be useless under bright conditions. I agree with Landshark, using any camera for a while & this will no longer be an issue of concern for you.

I'm not a fan of Nikon's D3xxx series of cameras because they don't shoot 14-bit raw files (only 12-bits with 1/4 the tonal range of 14-bit files). A better option would be the Canon T series like the T5i. If you want to get a DSLR that has in-body image stabilization, then your only other option would be the Pentax K50, K5IIs, KS-2 and the K3 all of which are very well built and have some of the best ISO performance.

Sony's have an edge over Nikons in that they have image stabilization built into the body. This allows you to shoot with any lens and get IS. This is incredibly useful for anyone shooting video, and even more so for anyone shooting with lenses like the 50mm since no one makes a stabilized 50mm lens. If shooting handheld without a tripod is important to you, then the Sony is the best way to go.

If speed of the AF system for sports is important, then any DSLR will be better than a mirrorless, but you'd get even faster AF with Nikon's D5xxx series instead.

I've never read or see a review that stated there was any noticeable degradation of the image due to the fixed mirror. The benefit is no moving parts, quieter operation and you don't get that black viewfinder during the exposure which allows you to see the subject 100% of the time. This is useful when using flash.



However the big Achilles heal with the Sony system is its total lack of lenses and accessories relative to what Nikon offers. Sony lenses, in general aren't as sharp as Nikons too. Their 28-70 f/2.8 Carl Zeiss lenss is $1,800 but it's still about 30% less sharp than Nikon's $1,700 equivalent and about equal to Tamron's $600 version. Go to photozone.de and compare for yourself.

Answer 2

Don't teach your grandmother to suck eggs, we know the difference. Did you know they're all built around the same sensor - which is made by Sony ?



I wouldn't entertain an EVIL model like the A3000 and A5000, because their electronic viewfinders can t react to changing conditions as quickly as the optical viewfinder of a true DSLR (I'd go for Pentax over Nikon, but I'm cursed with this working brain - Pentax also use Sony sensors).



The current vogue of using stills cameras for video puts the Sony A-58 above competitors from Canon, Nikon and even Pentax (unlike a true DSLR, you can shoot video through the viewfinder).



Personally, I see Live View as a great way to drain your batteries, and whoever added it to DSLRs should be drawn and quartered. DSLRs have the finest viewfinder system in the history of photography, and if you're even THINKING of using Live View, you shouldn't be allowed within 50 feet of one.

Answer 3

Go with the Nikon D5500. I'd avoid the D3300 since it doesn't shoot 14-bit RAW files like the D5500. While there's nothing wrong with the Sony A58, there isn't a lot of lens options out there. Going with the D5500 will give you a camera that performs the best, and gets into a brand that is extremely well supported not only by Nikon but numerous 3rd-party vendors.

Answer 4

If live view simulation is the most important for you then a Compact System Camera is the way to go. The Sony A5000 should have already sold itself to you, or certainly one of the M4:3 Panasonics or Olympus OMD's



But it looks like it hasn't... so with the Nikon take the first shot at a location, review, check the histogram, alter settings.. and take the next shots perfectly. This becomes so automatic that you'll wonder why you ever worried about it.

Answer 5

If you want live view as a useful feature, then Nikon has the absolute worst implementation of live view that it is possible to imagine. There are two other DSLR manufacturers who make cameras which don't have a crippled live view feature.



Yes, Sony cameras and lenses feel like plastic crap. LOL.

Answer 6

Nikon has quality, Sony has feature. Quality wins every time. That feature is of little true photography value, and you will soon not miss it. If you pass up on quality, you will soon miss it. Listen to your hands.