Camera recommendation on the budget

marta28 · Aug 23, 2017

Hello all,
complete newbie here.
I would like to buy my first DSLR camera for family/hobby photography, but also to test myself in it..What good quality camera (on a limited budget) would you recommend?

At this point my options:
used Canon Rebel T1i with 3 additional lenses (350$ CAD)
refurbished Canon Rebel T5i (18-55 mm lens) ($599 CAD)
new Nikon D3400 (18-55 mm lens) ($599 CAD)

Is T1i Rebel even worth looking at?

jaomul · Aug 23, 2017

The t1i can produce fine images, but sensors on cams are now better, so you can do better in less than ideal light with newer models

The d3400 has a great sensor inside, and Nikon have released some quite high quality inexpensive lenses of late. That would be my choice on your list

jaomul · Aug 23, 2017

This might be worth a read for you. There is a love hate thing on this forum for this guy, but most agree when it comes to gear he knows his stuff. Basically he reckons a d3300 is as good so if you can grab a bargain

Nikon D3400 Camera Review | DSLRBodies | Thom Hogan

petrochemist · Aug 23, 2017

Any DSLR made in the last 10 years is capable of producing great results, in many ways the more important factors are the lens & the photographer.

How good any particular one is for you depends on what you are shooting, and how the cameras ergonomics suit you.

Ergonomics is something you just have to try for yourself. I personally find the lower model Canon bodies very poor in this respect, though vast numbers find them acceptable.

My own DSLRs are all at least 5 years old, so tend to suffer in poorer light, they also have relatively slow AF. The AF isn't a problem for portraits/landscapes but does become more challenging for motorsports & birds/dragonflies in flight...

Much of the time I use mirrorless cameras instead of my DSLRs (also all manufactured 5+ years ago). In most situations these produce results every bit as good as the DSLRs, yet are more adaptable for quirky lenses.

To get useful advice you need to be more specific on your expected subjects, (My hobby shooting includes just about everything including infra red & microscopic, as well as more routine subjects)
Are you expecting to shoot wildlife or sports, macro, landscapes, travel... Features very helpful for some of these are of little to no use for others.

Getting good results in some genre can require seriously expensive lenses and significant skill. Fortunately more moderate skill & a good subject can also get good results in many other genres.

jaomul · Aug 23, 2017

petrochemist said:
Any DSLR made in the last 10 years is capable of producing great results, in many ways the more important factors are the lens & the photographer.

How good any particular one is for you depends on what you are shooting, and how the cameras ergonomics suit you.

Ergonomics is something you just have to try for yourself. I personally find the lower model Canon bodies very poor in this respect, though vast numbers find them acceptable.

My own DSLRs are all at least 5 years old, so tend to suffer in poorer light, they also have relatively slow AF. The AF isn't a problem for portraits/landscapes but does become more challenging for motorsports & birds/dragonflies in flight...

Much of the time I use mirrorless cameras instead of my DSLRs (also all manufactured 5+ years ago). In most situations these produce results every bit as good as the DSLRs, yet are more adaptable for quirky lenses.

To get useful advice you need to be more specific on your expected subjects, (My hobby shooting includes just about everything including infra red & microscopic, as well as more routine subjects)
Are you expecting to shoot wildlife or sports, macro, landscapes, travel... Features very helpful for some of these are of little to no use for others.

Getting good results in some genre can require seriously expensive lenses and significant skill. Fortunately more moderate skill & a good subject can also get good results in many other genres.

What you say is all true. I do believe though that most people getting a first dslr do not really want to do specific stuff, just general photography. After a time then they like certain types more than others. Generally I'd just recommend a good all around dslr to those buying a first. When upgrading I think more specific questions, about genres etc need to be asked.

Myself for example, when I bought my first dslr I liked general photography, now I only like portraits, wildlife, landscape, macro, astro, sports , Street, long exposure, black and white and a few others

goooner · Aug 23, 2017

I would throw in pentax if your local shop has them. They probably have the best bang for the buck, and their lenses are super as well. Not sure if 3rd part lens makes (Tamron, Sigma, Tokina), make pentax mount lenses though.

Derrel · Aug 23, 2017

Nikon D3400 vs Canon EOS 500D, DIGITAL REBEL T1i or Kiss Digital X3 | DxOMark

Wow...the Rebel T1i (eos 500D) is wayyyyyy behind the times...no matter how cheap it is, it' s a poor performer by 2017 standards.

I shot my Nikon D2x last summer...similar sensor to the T1i in DxO Mark score...notieably poorer than a "modern" d-slr.

petrochemist · Aug 23, 2017

goooner said:
I would throw in pentax if your local shop has them. They probably have the best bang for the buck, and their lenses are super as well. Not sure if 3rd part lens makes (Tamron, Sigma, Tokina), make pentax mount lenses though.

They do but not that many of them in recent years, fast telephotos being the one significant shortfall IMO (not that I could afford one anyway).

In my Pentax collection I have a Sigma 150-500 & a Tamron 10-24, as well as quite a number of 3rd party lenses from MF film days.

cherylynne1 · Aug 23, 2017

I would definitely go with the Nikon d3400 out of those choices. No contest.

benhasajeep · Aug 24, 2017

Of your choices the Nikon D3400 is the clear advantage. I have the previous model D3300 I carry in my backpack for work travels. Even though I have better more advanced cameras. I don't mind using the D3300 one bit.

TCampbell · Aug 24, 2017

While the T1i will do well if it has plenty of light, it has a rather limited ISO range by the standards of today and it shows noise in the images at much lower ISO levels than more current models.

I owned a T1i several years back. It was great at ISO 100 & 200, but I didn't like to push it beyond ISO 800. At ISO 1600 the images were very noisy and ISO 3200 (which is the max for the camera) is something you'd only use if you were absolutely desperate.

A T5i or D3400 will perform much better.

Designer · Aug 24, 2017

Save a few dollars and get the Nikon D3300:

https://www.amazon.com/Nikon-1532-18-55mm-3-5-5-6G-Focus-S/dp/B00HQ4W1QE

Derrel · Aug 24, 2017

TCampbell said:
While the T1i will do well if it has plenty of light, it has a rather limited ISO range by the standards of today and it shows noise in the images at much lower ISO levels than more current models.

I owned a T1i several years back. It was great at ISO 100 & 200, but I didn't like to push it beyond ISO 800. At ISO 1600 the images were very noisy and ISO 3200 (which is the max for the camera) is something you'd only use if you were absolutely desperate.

A T5i or D3400 will perform much better.

TCampbell has hit upon one of the worst problems of my aged D2x...the sensor shows noise at MUCH lower ISO levels than even a new, $399, entry-level 24-MP NIkon body...the newer, better sensors have really improved the picture quality one can achieve at ISO 250,320,400,500,640,and 800; in the "olden days", such ISO levels as 400 or 500 often looked very poor.

beagle100 · Aug 25, 2017

jaomul said:
petrochemist said:

Any DSLR made in the last 10 years is capable of producing great results, in many ways the more important factors are the lens & the photographer.
How good any particular one is for you depends on what you are shooting, and how the cameras ergonomics suit you.
Ergonomics is something you just have to try for yourself. I personally find the lower model Canon bodies very poor in this respect, though vast numbers find them acceptable.
My own DSLRs are all at least 5 years old, so tend to suffer in poorer light, they also have relatively slow AF. The AF isn't a problem for portraits/landscapes but does become more challenging for motorsports & birds/dragonflies in flight...
Much of the time I use mirrorless cameras instead of my DSLRs (also all manufactured 5+ years ago). In most situations these produce results every bit as good as the DSLRs, yet are more adaptable for quirky lenses.

To get useful advice you need to be more specific on your expected subjects, (My hobby shooting includes just about everything including infra red & microscopic, as well as more routine subjects)
Are you expecting to shoot wildlife or sports, macro, landscapes, travel... Features very helpful for some of these are of little to no use for others.
Getting good results in some genre can require seriously expensive lenses and significant skill. Fortunately more moderate skill & a good subject can also get good results in many other genres.

Click to expand...

What you say is all true. I do believe though that most people getting a first dslr do not really want to do specific stuff, just general photography. After a time then they like certain types more than others. Generally I'd just recommend a good all around dslr to those buying a first. When upgrading I think more specific questions, about genres etc need to be asked.
Myself for example, when I bought my first dslr I liked general photography, now I only like portraits, wildlife, landscape, macro, astro, sports , Street, long exposure, black and white and a few others

I agree, Canon will give you better "IQ" image quality and has a better selection of lens but go to a store and check out the latest models including mirrorless cameras
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless