How about Nikon D3100, the same price is recommended, cost effective

It's hard to say how good it is. In the case of DSLR, the parameters of Nikon Canon are completely complementary. Choose the price according to your own economic ability, choose the brand according to your own preferences, and you're good to go. This kind of thing costs a penny, and it's hard to say that it's cost-effective.

If you like the D3100, buy it, it's a good machine. The lens sleeve 18-55mm can be used daily, but this lens imaging is very meaty, after all, it is a 600 piece lens. 18-105 can be considered, the imaging is good, **1800 or so.

In addition, you can buy a 50mm fixed focus head, which is very good for portraits. 700 blocks, 1700, 2800

D3100 is very good, the entry machine, it has only been out for a short time. Superior performance.

Buying a D3100 with an 18-55 head is to buy a D3100 set, and the current price is about 4000 including tax

The D3100 is not bad for novice practitioners, and the 18mm wide-angle end of the head is extraordinary. The 55mm end is a disappointment. Overall, the cost performance is still very strong, and my personal recommendation lens is 35mm sleeve is enough.

Or just change to a 16 85mm high-end cargo. If the machine recommends, I think Pentax's K X is also good.

1. If you only consider it at the same price, then you don't have to think about it, there is no product at this price that is more cost-effective than it, because only Canon 500D, a discontinued product at the same price (SLR, don't consider these two brands), digital products buy new and not old, and D3100The cost performance itself is stronger than 500D!

The 55 lens will be replaced in a short time, it is recommended to directly match the 18-105 lens, a total of about 5000, to ensure that the imaging effect is better than 550d+18-135! ！

Tangled D3000 vs D3100? Wood has a god horse to be entangled, all of them are entry machines, and make a stronger d90.

The D3100 is a DX body, which is more suitable with a DX lens. Here's why:

1. The DX lens has a small image field and a small lens, so the size is relatively small, which is easy to carry.

2. DX lenses are cheaper than FX (full-frame) lenses, which are suitable for beginners to make a small investment, and the cost performance is higher than that of FX lenses (although the image quality may not be as good as FX lenses).

3. In the DX body, the lens of DX is more suitable than FX, and it will not lose the wide angle. What's more, for beginners, the focal length of DX lenses, especially standard-change lenses, is more suitable for everyday use.

4. Even if you want to upgrade to the FX body in the future, you are using the DX lens now, and if you really want to upgrade it in the future, you won't lose much money if you get rid of the current DX lens, and the lens is still relatively valuable.

Feel free to ask.

The Nikon D3100 is an APS-C camera, and the matching lens is a DX lens. The full lens is available, too.

Suggestion: If you are ready to upgrade the full set in the future, then buy a full set of lenses, the machine is upgraded, and the lens can continue to be used.

If you are sure not to upgrade the full pair, then accompany the DX lens to save money.

If you have a view, you will have 16-85vr.

With image stabilization, fast focusing, and good wide-angle distortion control. Dispersion control is also okay.

Basically a good companion for city tours.

Now it's my hang-up head.

DX's is fine, and there is money to buy a full-frame and a D3100 for even more.