VS

A6000

>>3112285
Canon, for the pure virtue of the better supported system.

>>3112290
What do you mean by that?

>>3112285
Fuji.

>>3112290
>better supported system
>can't even mount crop lenses on FF bodies
>nikon using the same mount since 1959

>>3112285
>Which one is better?
Nikon for the lens selection

>>3112285
Nikon for the lenses. They generally also give you more what you pay for. Canon isn't bad, but it's not as good from experience.

D3300

>>3112285
None of them. Get a slightly older but higher-end DSLR like D7100 instead, or a mirrorless camera.

>>3112296
Since AF-D lenses won't autofocus and AI/pre-AI lenses won't meter on D3300, being able to mount them is a questionable advantage.

>>3112285
my nuts

>>3112294
>>3112296
>>3112302
None of you actually shoot Nikon, do you?
https://www.nikonians.org/reviews/nikon-slr-camera-and-lens-compatibility

Sure, you can physically put most lenses all the way back to 1959 on that entry level body but calling what happens next "compatable" is a flat out lie.

Also, that pool of lenses drops like a rock when you take out all of the not-fully compatible lenses in the Nikon ecosystem.

>better supported system
It is. Irrespective of dickering over the number of lenses (which is actually pretty damn close even with the only partially functional lenses), Canon customer support is actually present and decently quick, even below the PS level. At the PS level, no one else can come close to touching them. Beyond that, everyone and their brother shoots Canon so the used market is hella strong. Nikon's is pitiful in comparison (although they are the second best, but it's a very distant second best), so yeah, you can mount that 1978 lens on your 3xxx series, but good luck finding one for sale. Canon is even better if you are into macro, want to use tilt shift, or shoot UWA.
>can't even mount crop lenses on FF bodies
Who the hell gives a shit about this? Really? I have a D810, not once, even for shits and giggles have I wanted to mount a dx lens on it. Best case is severe vignetting. Worst case is I spent $3000 to take a picture a $300 camera can take.

Y'all retards are missing the reason to choose Nikon over Canon: dynamic range. Let me amend that opening question:
Y'all don't actually know shit about photography do you?

>>3112311
So... Canon?

>>3112314
It's a starter camera. They're both kinda crap in their own ways, but are also both more than capable of making awesome images...since they're so low level, you might have to work a little harder to get certain kinds of results out of them, but they're capable. Look for used. Hop on craigslist and find something in your price range. Hopping ship is no big deal from a first camera unless you start dropping a lot of cash on lenses so don't stress too much about whether or not you made the most optimal choice. Get a body, get a lens or two, and get to shooting.

Quite seriously, anything released in around the last 7 or so years will suit you just fine.

>>3112311
Are you fucking stupid?

Do you think someone who spends 400 bucks on an entry level body will care about vintage lenses?

You can physically mount a lens and take a picture. If you want more, fuck you and spend your money on a better body.

I have a d3300 with the kit lens and I also have a bunch of old nikon glass that works just fine with the D3300 and my F3, just use the fucking live view to check the exposure. Is it that dificult?

>>3112323
>just use the fucking live view to check the exposure. Is it that dificult?

well actually yes, it slows you down tenfold

>>3112319
Let me add in: make sure the camera has PASM (Program, Aperture Priority (Canon calls this Av), Shutter Priority (Canon calls this Tv), and Manual modes. Make sure the camera works. Shutter counts are usually good until around the 200k mark.

Make sure your first lens covers the "normal" range (in the neighborhood of 35mm for a crop for the appropriate field of view). If it's a zoom, that's fine. Dick with that for a little while and you'll know if you want your next lens to be longer or shorter. I mean, it's honestly that simple. Yeah, x might have 2 stops more dr, y might have a better autofocus system, and whatever, but at the end of the day, there's no such thing as a perfect camera so no matter what you shoot, you'll have to deal with some kind of limitation. Dealing with it now won't hurt you a bit.

>>3112323
Op, see this guy? This is a brandfag. You don't ever want to become a brandfag. They're all cancerous no matter who they support. Look at how he bends over backwards to attempt to make Nikon's marketing fluff and very real hindrance to using the camera a positive thing. Down that path lies becoming a sonynigger, and that's just not good for anyone.

>>3112285
>asking /p/ which brand is better
>not a troll
You know you can only pick one, right?

>>3112285
Canon makes there own sensors, and in my opinion they are better.
Nikon buys their sensors from sony.
That being said, some people I know swear that Nikon is better for out door point and shoot and Canon is better for lit studio shooting

>>3112285
I use a T6, it's not bad. I got shit on by Nikon fanboys for using it for race photography and astrophotography yet my instagram photos have been liked by Nico Rosberg and NASA Astronauts so they can die.

>>3112285
t6 is literally a t5 rebranded.
it's still on a 550nm sensor and will band like mad when you push the shadows. dynamic range is worse than m43.

if you want a rabal, get a t7i or a sl2.
other wise the nigon is a steal.

sane people will get a sony a6000.

>>3112285
The D3300. I have it and I'm more than happy with it. Also, if you're a soccer mom, you can consider the PlayStation a6000

>>3112285
If you're new, stick to sony, an evf is a much larger viewfinder that gives an exact image preview as you adjust settings. Dslr with their ovf have a massive list of downsides, especially for the new photographer.

Either is shit. If you want a Canon, at least get a 77 or 80D, and for Nikon a D7200.

Everything below these is intentionally broken upgrade bait.

>>3112551
> Also, if you're a soccer mom, you can consider the PlayStation a6000
It's a way more useful and "serious" camera than the D3300, whether you dislike Sony's gaming division or not.

>>3112560
I don't care about games. But that's the only thing sony is good for nowadays.

No matter how much you wanna hype up the features of the a6k, at the end of the day, it doesn't have a viewfinder. Also, the glass selection is small and expensive. And the most important thing to think about is the reliability of the thing.

Pros use canon and nikon not because they are the best. But because they are reliable. I can use a whole week shooting jpgs with the d3300 and I'm sure that you can do the same with canon. But sony? You have to babysit that thing all the time. In the menu, on the screen, charging... everything besidea actually shooting photos.

>>3112325
>he wants a faster camera
So buy a fast camera with 2 sd slots with you want be "pro"

>>3112329
>Brandfag
I hate them just like you. The D7500 is a disgrace the A9 too. But complaining about a 400 bucks entry level camera is stupid. If they just added the AF motor the price would go at least +200 bucks.

Some people just want the cheapest NEW dslr avaiable. Nikon loses market every year because people buy xxxD and Tx canons and a6XXXs.

>>3112627
>But complaining about a 400 bucks entry level camera is stupid. If they just added the AF motor the price would go at least +200 bucks
I wasn't complaining about it. I was saying that all of the people who claimed that just because you could put a lens onto the body it's compatible is massively stretching the definition of compatibility, especially if you're basing your entire reason for purchasing a given body on lens availability and that number is stupidly inflated because of this stretched meaning.

Like I said before, there are definitely reasons to buy one, just not that one.

>>3112288
this

>>3112627
>So buy a fast camera with 2 sd slots with you want be "pro"

How exactly will 2 slots help me if I'm wasting time around focusing/adjusting every shot in live view?

>>3112285
D3300 image wise is better.
BUT the t6 can be used with an iphone and you can shoot from the app.
Wich translates to:
No need for a remote cus bulb shutter through app AND its a neat trick amongst NORMAL people who doesnt sperg out about cameras.

>>3112311
Most lenses are compatible though unless you are using new auto aperture lenses on film cameras. Generally most of the lenses tend to be a bit higher quality than canon just for the money. Canon is the company that has earned a reputation for being the best by public even though nikon isn't exactly worse.

>>3113759
>Generally most of the lenses tend to be a bit higher quality than canon just for the money.
This is entirely, objectively, incorrect.

>>3112285
dunno how it looks like now, but rebels had small visors and not quite right af last time i used one (it was 550d). i know even less about d3300, but at least this one has cool sensor like all of the other modern nikons have.

if i wouldn't be in canon ecosystem already, i think i'd rather try d3300. Canons deliver similar amount of iso noise since 350d unless you're going for high-end/full-frame .

> Digital

Neither.

Canon is for instanazis who think theyre professional photographers.