Why not ask this in the Photography forum? You might actually get some useful information.
I'm in the market for a DSLR so I can stop using my cell phone for pictures. I'm on the fence between the Canon T3i or NIkon D5100.
Now I'm not sure which to get because comparing the is basically a wash. I'm leaning more towards the Canons because of its lens compatibility. I'm also going to buy used to save some cash since I'm going back to Europe for another three months. I'd like to add since I'm buying used, I'd rather not spend north of $700 including a lens.
Which camera would the OT photographers recommend and what else should I look out for other than the obvious checking of the camera sensor, lens, (physical and front and back focusing) and general wear and tear?
Last edited by 92skirmishgti; 04-27-2012 at 12:08 AM.
Sony Alpha line. The new a35 is a very very good camera for the money. I have the older model a33 and it takes phenomenal pictures.
DSC04035-1 by rhecht90, on Flickr
^^^absolutely no post production on that pic aside from the watermark
click thru to see more from my sony.
no need to worry about lenses. the sony/minolta catalogue is very robust. plus i like the size of this dslT. it is very compact.
I've had a Canon and then got a Nikon. I really like the Nikon (yes, much newer, but still)... Cooler shutter sound too :p
I'd get the one that makes your hands happier
I'd make sure every button and switch feels solid and not like someone beat it to ****.
I've go a Rebel XT from several years ago. The lens compatibility is nice, especially on a budget or if you plan to upgrade to a full-frame at some point. Though, some of the EF-S lenses are pretty good.
EDIT: It's been a while since I've looked at what's available
The Canon 60Da one is a special kind of cool
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consum...meras/eos_60daFor photographers who look to the sky, Canon is proud to offer the new EOS 60Da DSLR. Following in the popularity of the EOS 20Da, the EOS 60Da is tailor made just for astrophotography. It's designed to ensure accurate depictions of the reddish hues when photographing diffuse nebulae in the nighttime sky with the increased sensitivity of hydrogen-alpha (Hα) lines (656nm).
Last edited by Robstr; 04-27-2012 at 12:18 AM.
All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others.
Both of those cameras are getting replaced sometime this year. Nikon just released the D3200 and in June they will probably have the next evolution of the D5x00 and the t4i.
Personally I hate both of the camera's you selected having tried them out. The controls are just uncomfortable, but for a first time shooter they may work. If I were you I would look into the D7000, D90 from Nikon or the 7D or 60D from Canon. Get a better camera that will shrink the urge to upgrade later on.
Or you can go with m4/3rds and get a EP3.
Flickr 8V Society #10
I was contemplating the 60D, but I'm having a hard time justifying spend so much money on a camera that probably wont see that much use. I'm certain that for the first week or two of ownership I will be balls deep in taking pictures and fiddling with it, and then for it to sit on a shelf in my place.
Okay, here is my .02 cents as someone who has to sell and explain the difference between these things for a living. (by no means am i discounting anyone else's opinion in this thread...mainly I am bored and can't sleep )
For those that have shown examples: You can take an awesome photo with nearly anything (especially if we are talking DSLR's), so (and not to sound rude), but photo examples are more or less pointless.
OP: Both of those camera's you listed will do the job and then some. Both have their strengths, and weaknesses. Both cameras are very user friendly especially for first timers, the Nikon even has a built in question mark that gives you brief descriptions of what you are getting into.
Here are the differences more simply laid out (in my mind):
-The 5100 carries the same sensor tech as the D7000, which is miles better than Canon's T3i in low light/high
ISO situations...long and short, you can push it more in lower light.
-The megapixel difference is minimal, both are more then enough.
-Both have wonderful screens that happen to tilt (a lot of people stray away from this, but it's a great feature
once you use it...being someone who has, it becomes very useful). I found the Canon's to be better though.
-Both shoot very comparable video, however the 5100 does not allow manual control in video...which to me was
kind of a pain in the ass.
-The 5100 feels slightly smaller in your hands, so depending on where you want to go with this, you may take
that as a plus or a minus.
-You are right with Canon's lens selection, they have some very "exotic" stuff, and a wide range of awesome
glass...Nikon has it's money lenses, but not as many to be honest. However, all of their great lenses from both
companies are going to cost you an arm and a leg, so consider whether or not you will even end up purchasing
something north of 1000.00 in the future.
Having owned the Canon (being a Canon person), and having used the 5100 extensively (girlfriend had one), I found the 5100's manual controls to be very run around and almost point and shoot like...which is completely unlike Nikon. For example: on the Canon, all things like ISO, shutter control, aperture control, white balance are all readily available by a flick of a dial, a push of a button, or a combination of the two...0 menu diving.
However, with the 5100, in order to change ISO, white balance, focus points etc, you will need to click their "info/i" button and scroll through, then select, then change.
Like said above, consider other brands as well. Sony is making some awesome gear lately, and even with their release of the A57 (and at a great price), they have some contenders.
Big plus of the Sony's are: no mirror so muuuuch faster frames per second, and much faster auto focusing. As well, Sony puts a lot of work into their video functionality, and have jam packed most of their cameras with full 1080/60p video, with full time auto focus, which no one else has. And a ton of custom colour and scene modes like "toy mode", found those really cool to mess around with (good for beginners...my interest in that stuff wouldn't last long though).
However, big downside is proprietary hot shoe and electronic view finders...although their new OL.E.D finders look great, I still find them odd compared to the straight mirror image.
If you can, get yourself into your nearest camera store and feel all of them out: play around with them, move dials, hold it in your hand every which way you can think of, take some shots, and check out other lenses. When you look at camera's this close in the same range it really comes down to feel and how you pick up on where all the buttons.
Hope this helps if you ended up making it all the way though
DeathLens: That was a awesome reply thank you very much! I will most definitly look at the Sonys.
What should I look out for when buying used, anything other than what I mentioned? (sensor,lens (physically, and focus front/back)
Once again thanks for the informative post!
I'll quote Deathlens as a Nikon shooter that has grown frustrated with Nikons 'dumbing down' of entry level cameras
I'll also go ahead and copy/pasta what I drunkenly scribed in your photog forum thread:
Check out each of the cameras in a store and figure out which system/menu layout makes the most sense to you.
Buy a used setup of whichever brand you choose online (keh.com), and if you choose Nikon go with the 5100 and the 35mm f/1.8 lens, a circular polarizer, a tripod and Understanding Exposure.
Wait patiently for gear delivery, read, and have fun.
There's a lot of words in here, they really don't matter. People will talk about minute differences like they are being blown up into huge prints for Moma. The only true differences in all of the entry level cameras is how they feel in your hand and how the buttons are layed out. Go to the store, hold them all. Run through the menus and decide based on that alone. DON'T PIXEL PEEP, you will never be satisfied if you do.
Also, photography forum is patrolled by more people that you think. Most threads have replies withing a few minutes. Unless of course you post asking for C&C on your ****ty photos, then you'll have replies in seconds.
OP already has a thread in the photo forum.
Last edited by Mtl-Marc; Today at 23:59 PM.
Sent using smoke signals.
Originally Posted by Mk1Madness
Nikon is the only camera company that produces only cameras IIRC
Previously: 4 Honda Fits, 7 Ford Mustangs, '08 Honda Element, '03 Nissan 350Z, '97 Honda Accord, '99 Volvo V70, '69 VW Transporter, '09 Triumph Street Triple R, '02 Ranger, '99 Ranger, and a bunch of watercooled VWs
Im in love with my camera. Well built, great picture quality. Easy to use, VERY versatile and to me one of my more solid investments.
Nikon lenses do seem to be slightly more expensive than Canon's stuff, but here is the advice I would give myself if I could go back in time: Find out what the majority of your friends shoot with, and buy that. Why? Because you can borrow lenses, ask stupid questions, compare more easily, and check out what kind of gear you'd like in the future.
I'm not a photographer by any definition of the word, but having just bought my first entry level dslr, I feel like this information could be helpful.
Whatever you buy, good luck with the purchase.
Free "The GOD DAMN RANT Thread"!
OP, the post DeathLens gave has a ton of good info in it.
If you're looking for used gear, you might want to check out this place. It's primarily a Canon site, but you see Nikon gear up for sale on occasion.
As far as Sony cameras, I'm sure they make fine cameras, but if you're looking at photography as a long-term hobby, and want to expand your gear list / lens collection, I'd stick w/ Canon or Nikon.
But the concept of "they only make camera's so they must be better" doesn't hold much water IMHO.
GE makes light bulbs and Jet Engines... and both rock. So the thought that a company cannot do more than 1 thing well seems kinda silly.
Anywho, OP- Go hold both, and go play with both... get the camera that feels best in your hand and is most intuitive to you.
Also, get a decent post processing program and take a class (if you're new to it). Have fun and keep shooting!!!
"We'll not risk another frontal assault... that rabbit's DYNAMITE!"
MKV GTI : 4dr / TR / 50mm Vogtland & FK cup kit / 27mm Hotchkis RSB / S6 Reps / Stubby Antenna / Baby seat!!!
DSLR is incompatible with my lifestyle. The camera bodies are freakin' huge. The bigger the camera, the less likely I'm going to lug it around with me.
I think most people would be better off with a premium compact camera like the Canon PowerShot G12. Really good lens. 28mm lens with 5x optical zoom. HD video clips. It fits in your pocket. MSRP $499 and an internet street price of $400-ish with no tax and free shipping.
I have an Olympus Micro 4/3 camera with a bunch of lenses and an electronic viewfinder. It's halfway between a DSLR and a premium compact. Most of the time, I'd be better served having a premium compact.
I work with Matt aka Deathlens, he hit the nail on the head. Aside from getting a D90 I'd steer clear of Nikon for the simple fact that you have to dive in to the menus to change simple things, which isn't intuitive at all. Sony and Canon do a much better job at giving you a user friendly ergonomic layout(on the entry level cameras). If you want to use your camera in full auto all the time, like a point and shoot then any of them will work perfectly fine, but if you plan on getting creative the Canon and Sony would be better suited for your needs.
DRS ESD SC
I went through the same dilemma before going to Peru.
I ended up getting a Cannon (t1i or t3i...its too early to remember right now) with the standard 18-55mm lens. I also picked up another lens (can't remember off the top of my head) that basically takes great portraits but isn't able to zoom. Its good for focusing in on one object and making the rest blurry (scientific explaination).
I think the original camera body/lens combo was like $700 or so new, and the extra lens was $100.
Either way, I would recommend buying as early as you can along with a book explaining how to use it. Kind of a "Canon t3i for dummies" deal. You'll take better pictures on the trip. These things have plenty of automatic setting options, but they also let you play around manually (which is kind of the point). The book will help you understand these settings.
Canon point and shoot. You think you'll carry the DSLR around at first until you realize it's big, bulky, and generally a pain in the ass to carry around....especially if you want to travel with it. I got the wife a Canon S100 for Xmas and it does everything our Nikon DSLR can do, but we actually take it places.
MemeGate 2012 - First Responder, post #2
Originally Posted by .skully.
If you set out with the purpose of taking pics, you might as well carry a DSLR. A DSLR with a small prime lens is easy enough to carry around, and the huge array of lenses and accessories available make them real, no excuses professional tools.
Whatever DSLR you end up with, I can't recommend the Black Rapid RS-4 strap enough: http://www.blackrapid.com/product/camera-strap/rs-4/
It's well worth the price of admission. I've used this strap on two major trips (south of France and Rome) as well as weekend excursions (Nürburgring, etc) and it has been amazing.
OEM straps are garbage.