MMiller Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 I've been away from Nikon after shooting with Canon for many years. I was a bit intrigued with some rather inexpensive, but seemingly impressive Nikon kits I saw at Costco today. Both the 5200 and 3200 Nikon bodies have 24 mp and the kits come with two zoom VR lenses ), and sell for around a $1000 plus and $750 respectfully. As a back up spare system, or even a primary stock shooting system, would I be fooling myself thinking the Nikon 24 megapixel systems give me better resolution than my Canon 18 mp? And then what about the lenses? Obviously they are the less expensive kit versions, but what about the final resolution results? Seems with all the technology, those lenses would be just about as sharp, (or pretty close as to not be a real issue in QC) as their counterparts that cost two or three times as much, correct? Understandably some of the advantages such as AF speed, as well as numerous other bonus features are what you pay for on the more expensive kits, but for simple landscape/scenic (ie tripod) shots, is there much, if any loss, quatlity wise with the final product using the lesser expensive kits? If anything, it'd be tempting just to keep a spare kit/system in the car at all times, just in case certain ops arise out of nowhere..But I don't want to be throwing money away to discover they're not up to par. Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.