Nikon D3300 Digital SLR + 18-55mm VR II Lens (£319 with cashback) £349 @ Jessops
383°Expired

Nikon D3300 Digital SLR + 18-55mm VR II Lens (£319 with cashback) £349 @ Jessops

36
Found 3rd Jun 2015
Nikon D3300 Digital SLR in Black + 18-55mm VR II Lens

Cheapest price ever

£319 (with £30 Nikon Cashback)

2 Year Nikon Warranty included.

Free next day delivery.

36 Comments

nice deal, heat added

A quick google search will give you at least 4 other places where its cheaper .

Houstieboy

A quick google search will give you at least 4 other places where its … A quick google search will give you at least 4 other places where its cheaper .


Highly likely that they will be grey imports though. Great price for the camera from a reputable UK seller.

Houstieboy

A quick google search will give you at least 4 other places where its … A quick google search will give you at least 4 other places where its cheaper .


http://i.imgur.com/uVGQvj0.gif

which is your cheapest non grey import?

Torn a little between this and the G6 that was posted last week, looking for a good all rounder and while images may be better with this video is poor.

Comment

type2jim

Torn a little between this and the G6 that was posted last week, looking … Torn a little between this and the G6 that was posted last week, looking for a good all rounder and while images may be better with this video is poor.



Get a Sony a6000

sparklehedgehog

CommentGet a Sony a6000


different price range so not really relevant

to say video is poor with these seems a little extreme, reviews seem to think its fine


Nice entry level DSLR. Worth getting it. Although if you have a bit of extra money, worth buying the body only and get a decent lens instead. The stock 18-55 is quite average.

great camera this, my son is learning such a lot. the lens is pretty good too

Comment

type2jim

Torn a little between this and the G6 that was posted last week, looking … Torn a little between this and the G6 that was posted last week, looking for a good all rounder and while images may be better with this video is poor.

im pretty sure its main function is to be a camera, not a video camera.

Soni84

Nice entry level DSLR. Worth getting it. Although if you have a bit of … Nice entry level DSLR. Worth getting it. Although if you have a bit of extra money, worth buying the body only and get a decent lens instead. The stock 18-55 is quite average.



Agreed but you'll pay almost 2x as much for little better improvement in quality:

http://i.imgur.com/Kh2sfLH.png

Source.

Bought the body 2 weeks ago and paired it with a 18-105mm lens, great combination so far!
Next on the list is a 35mm prime.

Hopefully be going to the US at some point later in the year. Keeping my eyes open for a good camera deal. I'm no professional so I don't really want to be messing with changing lenses. Would this be okay with the standard lens or should I just look at bridge cameras without interchangeable lenses?

hero9989

I'm no professional so I don't really want to be messing with changing … I'm no professional so I don't really want to be messing with changing lenses. Would this be okay with the standard lens or should I just look at bridge cameras without interchangeable lenses?



Even with the standard lens this will produce far superior images, albeit with much less range.

hero9989

Hopefully be going to the US at some point later in the year. Keeping my … Hopefully be going to the US at some point later in the year. Keeping my eyes open for a good camera deal. I'm no professional so I don't really want to be messing with changing lenses. Would this be okay with the standard lens or should I just look at bridge cameras without interchangeable lenses?


if you dont want to swap lenses then although you'd get great pics its a bit pointless (tbh i sort of wish i went for one i didn't have to change as it gets old fast!)
18-55mm equates to the same range as a 3x zoom compact roughly, if you are fine with that sort of range then one of the sony rx100 models or similar would be what you are after if want great quality
if want more zoom then you want either bridge or compact superzoom or to change lenses.

brilly

if you dont want to swap lenses then although you'd get great pics its a … if you dont want to swap lenses then although you'd get great pics its a bit pointless (tbh i sort of wish i went for one i didn't have to change as it gets old fast!)18-55mm equates to the same range as a 3x zoom compact roughly, if you are fine with that sort of range then one of the sony rx100 models or similar would be what you are after if want great qualityif want more zoom then you want either bridge or compact superzoom or to change lenses.


for travelling, consider a micro four thirds and prime?

skeptic

for travelling, consider a micro four thirds and prime?



What technology product does not get OLD FAST??

I got this camera and it's great!!

aym280

What technology product does not get OLD FAST??


try reading what you replied to?
Edited by: "brilly" 4th Jun 2015

Soni84

The stock 18-55 is quite average.



with all due respect, this couldn't be further from the truth. so it doesnt have the range of a zoom lens, nor does it have the aperture of a nifty fifty for example however, this lens is sharp sharp sharp and a perfect (yes perfect) lens for starter dslr.

if you are in the market for this camera then you will not need to be investing in better glass. get this and maybe a 55-200/300 and you're good to go.

hero9989

Hopefully be going to the US at some point later in the year. Keeping my … Hopefully be going to the US at some point later in the year. Keeping my eyes open for a good camera deal. I'm no professional so I don't really want to be messing with changing lenses. Would this be okay with the standard lens or should I just look at bridge cameras without interchangeable lenses?



There is little point any more in buying these bulky SLR cameras, especially for travel. A camera like the Sony A6000 or A5100 will take similar or better quality pictures, will be a lot less bulky and heavy, have better video focusing and, unlike this camera, will have silent video focusing. The only reason these bulky SLR cameras still get away with it is because consumers are ignorant about what else is out there.

Currently, the A5100 can be had on an Amazon warehouse deal for about £260. That is a far better deal than this bulky Nikon.
Edited by: "dz1" 5th Jun 2015

dz1

There is little point any more in buying these bulky SLR cameras, … There is little point any more in buying these bulky SLR cameras, especially for travel. A camera like the Sony A6000 or A5100 will take similar or better quality pictures, will be a lot less bulky and heavy, have better video focusing and, unlike this camera, will have silent video focusing. The only reason these bulky SLR cameras still get away with it is because consumers are ignorant about what else is out there. Currently, the A5100 can be had on an Amazon warehouse deal for about £260. That is a far better deal than this bulky Nikon.


well thats a bit of opinionated crap!

these bulky dslrs generally have better handling/controls/ergonomics/variation of models/choice of lenses etc

is the viewfinder on your 2nd hand a5100 better than that on this new d3300 out of interest?

brilly

well thats a bit of opinionated crap! these bulky dslrs generally have … well thats a bit of opinionated crap! these bulky dslrs generally have better handling/controls/ergonomics/variation of models/choice of lenses etcis the viewfinder on your 2nd hand a5100 better than that on this new d3300 out of interest?



The A5100 has no viewfinder (the A6000 does though). You use the screen on the back of the camera instead to compose shots. I moved to Sony mirrorless from the Canon EOS and thought I would miss not having to peer through a viewfinder but found it doesn't bother me.

The handling, controls, ergonomics all seem fine to me. I love that it can fit in my trouser pocket which no DSLR can. Does that count as handling?

dz1

The A5100 has no viewfinder (the A6000 does though). You use the screen … The A5100 has no viewfinder (the A6000 does though). You use the screen on the back of the camera instead to compose shots. I moved to Sony mirrorless from the Canon EOS and thought I would miss not having to peer through a viewfinder but found it doesn't bother me. The handling, controls, ergonomics all seem fine to me. I love that it can fit in my trouser pocket which no DSLR can. Does that count as handling?


no it doesn't, it fits your needs and you like it - doesn't make it better

Original Poster

dz1

There is little point any more in buying these bulky SLR cameras, … There is little point any more in buying these bulky SLR cameras, especially for travel. A camera like the Sony A6000 or A5100 will take similar or better quality pictures, will be a lot less bulky and heavy, have better video focusing and, unlike this camera, will have silent video focusing. The only reason these bulky SLR cameras still get away with it is because consumers are ignorant about what else is out there. Currently, the A5100 can be had on an Amazon warehouse deal for about £260. That is a far better deal than this bulky Nikon.


Please note: Amazon warehouse deals are second hand and only come with a 90 day warranty, so not sure how you can compare the two deals? The A5100 new on Amazon is £429.

brilly

no it doesn't, it fits your needs and you like it - doesn't make it better



You can make the same argument for a £50 camera.

dz1

You can make the same argument for a £50 camera.


no you cant
thats why your argument is a non argument, you can only see one side

brilly

no you cantthats why your argument is a non argument, you can only see … no you cantthats why your argument is a non argument, you can only see one side



It's your argument since you decided to start it. Maybe you should just stop now.

dz1

It's your argument since you decided to start it. Maybe you should just … It's your argument since you decided to start it. Maybe you should just stop now.


erm my point is that there is no reason to force your own camera on others because you like it - it doesn't make it the best
i gave clear points above on major features of why a d3300 may be preferable but no no thats not good enough for you and your blinkered vision

your 50quid camera is no way comparable as it has only price and possibly size in its favour, it does not have equivalent picture quality like dslr and mirrorless cameras

brilly

erm my point is that there is no reason to force your own camera on … erm my point is that there is no reason to force your own camera on others because you like it - it doesn't make it the besti gave clear points above on major features of why a d3300 may be preferable but no no thats not good enough for you and your blinkered visionyour 50quid camera is no way comparable as it has only price and possibly size in its favour, it does not have equivalent picture quality like dslr and mirrorless cameras



Maybe I was forceful because I am finding it hard to think of many people who would benefit from choosing low end DSLR over a similarly priced mirrorless camera. Maybe someone who only wants to use manual focus in their videos, like a videographer, might prefer DSLR. But most buyers will want to use autofocus in their videos and we know dslr cameras have problems with video autofocus so that doesn't leave many people who would benefit from choosing DSLR.

dz1

Maybe I was forceful because I am finding it hard to think of many people … Maybe I was forceful because I am finding it hard to think of many people who would benefit from choosing low end DSLR over a similarly priced mirrorless camera. Maybe someone who only wants to use manual focus in their videos, like a videographer, might prefer DSLR. But most buyers will want to use autofocus in their videos and we know dslr cameras have problems with video autofocus so that doesn't leave many people who would benefit from choosing DSLR.


yes i am seeing that you are finding it hard to think.
video for many many camera users is much a secondary concern.
rather than having a generic dslr rant whats your problem with d3300?
lets compare it to your a5100 which you recommended as a better buy (a6000 too expensive as is a5100 tbh)
a5100 is better for video perhaps and continuous AF and size with low zoom lenses.
what else?

d3300 has viewfinder
better handling
better controls
better kit lens
ability to use decent flash or hotshoe accesories in general
access to existing nikon lenses you may own or a much much wider variety of lenses from new catalogue
ir
bigger battery
more memory settings
at a guess better low light AF
ability to switch off darkframes in long exposures (grr)

you may have certain preferences, others do as well
your choices doesn't make it a better camera though - just a different one

brilly

yes i am seeing that you are finding it hard to think.video for many many … yes i am seeing that you are finding it hard to think.video for many many camera users is much a secondary concern.rather than having a generic dslr rant whats your problem with d3300?lets compare it to your a5100 which you recommended as a better buy (a6000 too expensive as is a5100 tbh)a5100 is better for video perhaps and continuous AF and size with low zoom lenses.what else? d3300 has viewfinderbetter handlingbetter controlsbetter kit lensability to use decent flash or hotshoe accesories in generalaccess to existing nikon lenses you may own or a much much wider variety of lenses from new catalogueirbigger batterymore memory settingsat a guess better low light AFability to switch off darkframes in long exposures (grr)you may have certain preferences, others do as wellyour choices doesn't make it a better camera though - just a different one



Some of what you said is true. Other stuff was wrong or subjective. Let's see what the top review site on the net, dpreview, has to say. According to dpreview the advantages of A5100/A6000 over nikon d3300 are the following:

Better build quality (for A6000, but A5100 is similar)
Better ergonomics and controls (for A6000, but A5100 is similar)
Better movie / video mode (we already knew this)
Better metering and focus accuracy (A6000 and A5100 have identical metering and focusing)
More features (see below)

Those are advantages over Nikon D3300 according to dpreview.

A couple of other differences that are worth mentioning between a5100 and D3300 is that D3300 has no HDR. Also D3300 has no flip screen, so you cannot even take selfies with the D3300!
Edited by: "dz1" 7th Jun 2015

dz1

Some of what you said is true. Other stuff was wrong or subjective. … Some of what you said is true. Other stuff was wrong or subjective. Let's see what the top review site on the net, dpreview, has to say. According to dpreview the advantages of A5100/A6000 over nikon d3300 are the following:Better build quality (for A6000, but A5100 is similar)Better ergonomics and controls (for A6000, but A5100 is similar)Better low light / high ISO performance (you guessed wrong about that)Better movie / video mode (we already knew this)Better metering and focus accuracyBetter JPEG image qualitySlightly better Raw image qualityThose are advantages over Nikon D3300 according to dpreview. A couple of other differences that are worth mentioning between a5100 and D3300 is that D3300 has no HDR. Also D3300 has no flip screen, so you cannot even take selfies with the D3300!


thats all a6000.. dpreview doesn't even have an a5100 review
also you are comparing across classes where scores are generated from different criteria
according to their comparison image scores are better for d3300 for both jpg/raw not the other way but again... cross class no real info

a6000 has good ergonomics for a mirrorless but compared to an average dslr is lacking, you expect more from dslr which is why it needs to be better to get the same score
a5100 isn't as good as a6000 so takes it further away, a5100 is much worse imo
probably the same with metering but dunno, i doubt the difference is particularly significant with modern cameras

dxomark iso score for d3300 is higher than a6000 but basically irrelvant as within a few %
iso score isn't even the same as low light performance so doesn't say anything about my guess

how is the flip screen on the a6000 if its so important on d3300?

hdr best done off camera anyway

this camera is 319, show me the mirrorless for this price than beats d3300 in all areas and you have a point - otherwise its personal choice

edit: btw i am sick of spending time on this so enjoy your bias

for the record i use a mirrorless camera but am open to thought
Edited by: "brilly" 7th Jun 2015

Who cares about a £300 camera being a grey import?! It's not like you're going to service it!

Original Poster

Can't comment on the Nikon warranty service as never had to use it. Did have to use the Sony Warranty service once when a RX100 developed a fault. It would have been about 50% of the camera cost to fix out of warranty, but this was promptly fixed and returned free of charge under warranty. Grey imports are great providing nothing goes wrong with them!

Comment

type2jim

Torn a little between this and the G6 that was posted last week, looking … Torn a little between this and the G6 that was posted last week, looking for a good all rounder and while images may be better with this video is poor.


The G6 is a great camera but if you plan on taking low light pictures I would always go for something with a bigger sensor.

However in good light the G6 can more than hold its own against MUCH bigger and expensive gear. For example last week I took the same shots with my NEX-7 and the G6. Almost impossible to say which pics were better unless I zoomed right in and even then the NEX-7 was my no means miles better than the G6.
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text