Moving on up

[TrinityImages]

I've been taking pictures since I was 11, but did not buy a real "big boy" camera until a few years ago and have quickly outgrown its limitations. It's a Sony CyberShot with very limited aperture settings and no option to swap lenses, so now I am looking at a Canon EOS Rebel T5 DSLR with 18mm - 55mm and 75 - 300 mm lenses. I have not been able to find much information on the camera's shutter speed and aperture and ISO ranges. Also, will the LCD and view finder give a good representation of what the final photo will capture? (My guess is yes, but I'm a green stick on this).

I also have a question about converting focal length to optical zoom. Most simple explanations say to divide the smaller number into the higher number, giving me a 4x on the 75 - 300 lens and a site showing a photo taken at varying focal lengths bears that out, but my question is let's say I'm taking a picture of a subject that is 300 yards away using a 300 mm focal length. How close would it appear (such as if looking at it with 7x binoculars, with look appear to be about 43 feet away). The best explanation I have heard there is using 35 as a standard and multiplying it y the camera's built in magnifier (usually 1.5(?), giving me about 12.8x. Would that be accurate. I'm a bit green on most things beyond aperture, ISO and shutter speed.
Am I making sense? It's been a long day.

 

[KmH]

Here is a link to the T5. For shutter speed/ISO ranges, Viewfinder coverage (95%) and more - click on Specifications.
EOS Rebel T5 18-55 IS II Kit
Canon APS-C size image sensors have a 1.6x crop factor.
Nikon APS-C size image sensors have a 1.5x crop factor.

Photography Calculators

 

[dasmith232]

Hi and welcome!

Whichever camera you buy is probably going to last (only) a couple of years, or maybe three. It's not a long-term thing. You'll either get bored or give up on photography in that time (although that doesn't sound like the case), or you'll "outgrow" that camera and move on to something else. Most people will say that you should focus on the lenses more than the camera. And that's a pretty true statement.

I'll go one step further and ask that you describe what kind of photography you want to pursue. That will define what kind of lighting (if any) that you'll want and what kind of lenses (which define the "feel" of the image). Then you pick a camera to suit that.

So, what kind of pictures do you want to capture?

Your question about conversions to binoculars is decent. I'm not dismissing that question. But you'll quickly get into the equivalent focal length questions if you haven't already. So, let's jump into that question and get it out of the way.

"Normal" vision on a "full frame" camera is around 50mm. Some will say 47mm, others will give a different number that's not too far off. Normal vision on a "crop" camera will be about 35mm. On a Canon crop camera (like the T5), it's closer to 30mm. So if you divide the focal length (like 300mm on the 75-300mm lens) by that "normal" number, you'll get an approximate magnification. So, 300mm divided by 30mm is about 10x magnification for binoculars.

And staying with that same 75-300 lens, at the 75mm end of the scale, it would be a 75/30 or 2.5x magnification in binoculars terms.

The 4x that you mentioned above has no relevance on this. It's just saying that the range of the zoom power spans 4x the shortest length. And spoiler alert: the bigger that range number, the weaker the lens (generally speaking). There are optical compromises that have to be made to make a big range. The 75-300 is an "okay" lens, especially when starting out. There are many lenses that are better and they're more expensive. Kind of like binoculars or rifle scopes. They're expensive for a reason.

The ideal focal length(s) depends on what kind of pictures you want to capture. So, what kind of pictures do you want to capture?

Depending on the kind of pictures, you may want a larger, mirrored camera like the T5. But if you want to use flash (like portraits of friends, family, when the kids go to dances, etc.) then the T5 has some limits in controlling flashes. Some people don't care about flash and this isn't an important point.

If you want to travel with the camera, then you might want something that is smaller and lighter. The easier it is to bring a camera, the more likely you'll do it. And doing photography is a lot more fun than owning a camera and not doing photography. If you want to travel then something like the Sony a6000 series might be worth a look.

Nikons also have many great cameras. The lack of ability for the Canon T5 to control flash is not an issue with the Nikon D3400. However, there are other limitations. As a rule, every camera will do something that a competing brand won't do. Which ones matter? Well, that depends on the kind of photography.

And just about every camera out there can take great pictures. The best choice is really going to be a personal preference. I have Canon, Sony and Nikon. They're all fine.

Finally, we HAVE to talk about budget. Whatever you think you'll spend, multiply that by 2 or 3. When adding lenses, you'll quickly get to that number. If you never add on additional equipment, then you're not using the benefit of an interchangeable lens system and you'd be better off just using your cell phone. Cell phones make really good cameras and you almost always have one around.

What's your budget? Is that a "today" budget with room in the future, or an all-time number?

If you have family members or close friends with camera equipment, that might be a really good brand to choose. If you're shooting Canon and they're shooting Nikon then it's hard to compare and share (at an entry level). But if you're both using the same brand, not only can you compare and share ideas, but you can even compare and share lenses and other accessories.

I have a(n adult) daughter who is a photographer in her own right. She uses Canon because I use Canon, and I have multiple bodies and a couple dozen lenses that she knows she can borrow. She comes over for a visit, chats up me and my wife and walks out with a lens or two... Hmm, I need to think about that one...

 

[photo1x1.com]

Hi and welcome to the forum!
Keith has sent you the links to all the infos you need in regard to available camera settings. What I sometimes do before I buy a product is download the manual and see if the thing does what I think I need.

• Regarding the optical zoom thing: don´t care about that. This is no valuable info at all. The best image quality is achieved with so called prime lenses - for example a 50mm lens, or an 85mm lens. They all have just one single focal lenght and therefore no optical zoom at all. Usually the higher the zoomrange, the less image quality you get because the lens has more glass elements and they are also moving, making it rather difficult for the manufacturers to compensate various lens aberrations.
  That doesn´t mean you must not buy zoom lenses. All I want to say with this long text is: don´t worry about optical zoom that´s not a valid concern for serious photographers.
• Regarding the other question 300mm 300 yards: You need to use the "Dimensional Field of view Calculator" from Keiths link. If you enter 300mm and 900 ft (being European I hope I got the conversion right), you get a vertical field of view of 45' 0". This means an object that is 45' 0" high will fill the frame vertically. Since the human eye is very special because it is merely a fisheye lens with our brain doing all the calculations on what to focus on (sharpnesswise and sizewise) it is hard to almost impossible to really tell how close it appears. How close do you have to get to an object that is 45' 0" tall to make it fill your eyes frames? You would´t really get the same impression of the subject you´d get from the 300mm.
  However - some people say that 50mm lenses (on a full frame camera without crop) are equivalent to the human eye. That would be around 30mm on Canon crop sensor cameras like the Rebel T5. So if you enter these values in the above linked calculator, you´d get a distance of 90ft. That´s all pure maths though and in my opinion doesn´t really reflect the reality. So I´d forget about all those things and maybe rent a lens from a friend, or go into a shop or a electronics show to test various lenses before you buy. Once you bought you won´t think about these kind of things anymore - promised

That sounds pretty complex when it is written down, while in fact it is not, I hope it helps anyway.

EDIT: it takes me too long to write sometimes - Dave beat me

 

[TrinityImages]

Living in NC, my passion is motorsports, specifically stock car racing. I visit a local dirt track during the season and since I don't have access to the infield (yet) and can't afford a more rugged camera (yet) that will fare better in a very dusty environment if I did, I do most of my shots from the stands, hence my question about zoom; getting close to my subject without getting close. These races also run well past sunset, so light becomes an issue.
I also plan to do promotional shots for musicians, so again, I need a camera that works well in low light without looking grainy.
Thanks for the education!

 

[goodguy]

Not recommending the Canon T5, its got an old sensor in it which is offering only the most basic performance.
Low light performance and dynamic range is very basic.
If you want only Canon then I don't recommend anything less then the Canon t6i which is the first Canon crop sensor camera with a modern sensor but the t6i is more expensive then the T5
I would recommend if you will to go Nikon the Nikon D3300 which has a totally modern sensor and is a better camera then the T5 and both should be about same price

Here is a comparison review between the 2 cameras

 

[Elamras9]

Just keep trying, you will be professional.

 

[benhasajeep]

I absolutely agree with goodguy. Especially if your doing any kind of shooting at night. The T5 or (1200D) is a very poor performer in low light. Has lower dynamic rand and color performance. The D3300 which is at a good discount now is a much better performer all around over the Rebel T5. I think it's on sale from Nikon for $399 with the 2 lenses. But the 2nd lens will only be a 55-200. But Nikon does have a similar 70-300 lens available that is same performer as the canon.

Now I am a Nikon user. But looking at the stats for the lower level Canon line. Nikon D3300 is best bang for the buck in terms of performance for price.

 

[astroNikon]

I also have a question about converting focal length to optical zoom. Most simple explanations say to divide the smaller number into the higher number, giving me a 4x on the 75 - 300 lens and a site showing a photo taken at varying focal lengths bears that out, but my question is let's say I'm taking a picture of a subject that is 300 yards away using a 300 mm focal length. How close would it appear (such as if looking at it with 7x binoculars, with look appear to be about 43 feet away). The best explanation I have heard there is using 35 as a standard and multiplying it y the camera's built in magnifier (usually 1.5(?), giving me about 12.8x. Would that be accurate. I'm a bit green on most things beyond aperture, ISO and shutter speed.
Am I making sense? It's been a long day.

This may assist you in the "focal length" of the lens in relation to the sensor size ==> DX Lens Focal Lengths

Also, with lenses, you may find lenses vary, quality or not, on the long end of 300mm for wide focal length lenses. So you'll have to research each particular lens on it's own.

FYI, if you *really* need low light (by what ever definition you are defining it as) then you'll find out that a Full Frame sensor, with professional glass, is the only way to go compared to a crop sensor.

 

[Braineack]

Nikon D3300 is best bang for the buck in terms of performance for price.

I still think a used D600 is.

 

[benhasajeep]

Also as other has tried to relay on the X-zoo

Nikon D3300 is best bang for the buck in terms of performance for price.

I still think a used D600 is.

But for the price range of the T5 with lenses. The D3300 would be the comparable best performing value. The D600 is the absolute current winner for performance / price in my opinion. That's why I still have mine.

But for the OP I think pricing is a big consideration. So a D600 and even less expensive FX glass would probably be out of consideration.

 

[dunfly]

I like the D3300, but for what you want to do I would seriously look at the D5300 instead. Sensors are the same, but the D5300 has 39 focus points ( a plus for action like auto racing) and an articulating screen, which is particularly useful if you shoot live view. I've seen some good prices on factory refurbished cameras.

 

[beagle100]

Hi and welcome to the forum!
Keith has sent you the links to all the infos you need in regard to available camera settings. What I sometimes do before I buy a product is download the manual and see if the thing does what I think I need.

• Regarding the optical zoom thing: don´t care about that. This is no valuable info at all. The best image quality is achieved with so called prime lenses - for example a 50mm lens, or an 85mm lens. They all have just one single focal lenght and therefore no optical zoom at all. Usually the higher the zoomrange, the less image quality you get because the lens has more glass elements and they are also moving, making it rather difficult for the manufacturers to compensate various lens aberrations.
  That doesn´t mean you must not buy zoom lenses. All I want to say with this long text is: don´t worry about optical zoom that´s not a valid concern for serious photographers.
• Regarding the other question 300mm 300 yards: You need to use the "Dimensional Field of view Calculator" from Keiths link. If you enter 300mm and 900 ft (being European I hope I got the conversion right), you get a vertical field of view of 45' 0". This means an object that is 45' 0" high will fill the frame vertically. Since the human eye is very special because it is merely a fisheye lens with our brain doing all the calculations on what to focus on (sharpnesswise and sizewise) it is hard to almost impossible to really tell how close it appears. How close do you have to get to an object that is 45' 0" tall to make it fill your eyes frames? You would´t really get the same impression of the subject you´d get from the 300mm.
  However - some people say that 50mm lenses (on a full frame camera without crop) are equivalent to the human eye. That would be around 30mm on Canon crop sensor cameras like the Rebel T5. So if you enter these values in the above linked calculator, you´d get a distance of 90ft. That´s all pure maths though and in my opinion doesn´t really reflect the reality. So I´d forget about all those things and maybe rent a lens from a friend, or go into a shop or a electronics show to test various lenses before you buy. Once you bought you won´t think about these kind of things anymore - promised

That sounds pretty complex when it is written down while in fact it is not, I hope it helps anyway.
EDIT: it takes me too long to write sometimes - Dave beat me

I agree with the others, Canon T6i, 750D will give you the best "bang for the buck" and better 'IQ' image quality. Also look at a refurbished 80D and 77D.

www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

 

[benhasajeep]

Hi and welcome to the forum!
Keith has sent you the links to all the infos you need in regard to available camera settings. What I sometimes do before I buy a product is download the manual and see if the thing does what I think I need.

• Regarding the optical zoom thing: don´t care about that. This is no valuable info at all. The best image quality is achieved with so called prime lenses - for example a 50mm lens, or an 85mm lens. They all have just one single focal lenght and therefore no optical zoom at all. Usually the higher the zoomrange, the less image quality you get because the lens has more glass elements and they are also moving, making it rather difficult for the manufacturers to compensate various lens aberrations.
  That doesn´t mean you must not buy zoom lenses. All I want to say with this long text is: don´t worry about optical zoom that´s not a valid concern for serious photographers.
• Regarding the other question 300mm 300 yards: You need to use the "Dimensional Field of view Calculator" from Keiths link. If you enter 300mm and 900 ft (being European I hope I got the conversion right), you get a vertical field of view of 45' 0". This means an object that is 45' 0" high will fill the frame vertically. Since the human eye is very special because it is merely a fisheye lens with our brain doing all the calculations on what to focus on (sharpnesswise and sizewise) it is hard to almost impossible to really tell how close it appears. How close do you have to get to an object that is 45' 0" tall to make it fill your eyes frames? You would´t really get the same impression of the subject you´d get from the 300mm.
  However - some people say that 50mm lenses (on a full frame camera without crop) are equivalent to the human eye. That would be around 30mm on Canon crop sensor cameras like the Rebel T5. So if you enter these values in the above linked calculator, you´d get a distance of 90ft. That´s all pure maths though and in my opinion doesn´t really reflect the reality. So I´d forget about all those things and maybe rent a lens from a friend, or go into a shop or a electronics show to test various lenses before you buy. Once you bought you won´t think about these kind of things anymore - promised

That sounds pretty complex when it is written down while in fact it is not, I hope it helps anyway.
EDIT: it takes me too long to write sometimes - Dave beat me

I agree with the others, Canon T6i, 750D will give you the best "bang for the buck" and better 'IQ' image quality. Also look at a refurbished 80D and 77D.

www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

I don't agree with the Canon T6i being the best bang for the buck. And it's not just a Canon / Nikon thing either. The T6i is $100 more than the D3400 with kit lens new ($200 more than the D3300 with kit lens, new). Going by DXO testing the D3300 is almost a full bit and a half better for color depth, .8 better in dynamic range, and scores 50% higher in low light / ISO performance (919ISO score to 1,385 on the D3300). The Canon does have a stronger body, and higher resolution and tilting screen. And has 14 bit processing. More focus points. But it still does not perform where it counts. And that is the quality of the picture.

DXO rates the D3300 at 54th best current DSLR and the T6i as the 142nd. For color and dynamic range it scores in the 160's. Even though it scores lower in ISO performance it is rated at 112 for ISO. So even though it's a poor performer in ISO compared to others, it brings it's score up.

 

[Braineack]

But for the price range of the T5 with lenses.

the T5 is a piece of junk. Might as well buy a D3100 instead (a camera I'd never recommend) -- not only is it cheaper, but it has comparative specs -- yet made 4 years earlier...

you should be able to pick one up for $100.

Canon is too overpriced for how cruddy the image ends up.


the D600 body looks to be averaging $650 on ebay. That's a steal for one of the best imagers still on the market -- especially knowing you can get a brand new replacement for the shutter/body if/when it has oil problems.

lol a used T5 is $400-450.. lol lol lol lol