Canon T6S/T6i or Nikon D5500/D5300

[angshujit]

As advised in my previous thread I am posting a new thread here.
Want to buy a camera. My choices are Canon T6S/T6i or Nikon D5500/D5300.
Purpose: Landscape. Some time I visit forests. So want to consider that as well. Family, specially my 3 year old son.
This is going to be my first DSLR camera. Previously I used a high zoom camera. I also used DSLRs (borrowed from my friends).
What are the best lenses that can serve my purpose. I decided to go with the 18-55mm kit lens and will buy a 70-300mm.
Please suggest.

 

[idcanyon]

Whatever you decide, I'm sure you'll be happy. You can't really go wrong with any of these options.

 

[Peeb]

I had a canon T3i and took some fantastic shots with it. Sold it and got the Nikon D5500 and have been thrilled with results there as well. The nikons (currently) have better sensors. Can I presume you have no canon or Nikon lenses now? The D5300 is a shrewder buy than the D5500 due to the fact it's not the "latest" version but the images should be virtually identical and the 5500 lacks GPS. Still the 5500 is minutely lighter which was important to me, and it might hold value slightly better (or not).

IMHO crop sensor cameras (like both cameras you are considering) are great for the "long" shots due to the one-and-a-half crop factor. This focal multiplication effect can get in the way however with wide-angle photography like landscape photography. While the 18-55 on my D5500 is ok for most things, I'm saving up for a tokina lens that's a bit wider. Have also toyed with stitching photos together for landscape panoramas which is fun.

OTOH, if I fell into some extra cash, I might keep the cropped Nikon and DX 55-300 as my backup/long camera get a full frame Nikon as my main rig and wide photo camera! The full frame Nikon FX lenses are heavier and more costly however. Seems I've heard that the Canon glass is good and perhaps less expensive on average.

Having said all that, whether it's Canon or Nikon, you can get great images either way. Best to choose one or the other and stick with it. That's not what I've done over the years but it's the financially smart play! Also the lens mount/unmount in opposite directions which drives you nuts once you get used to one or the other.

 

[jaomul]

As said both are great. It is said that Nikon cameras have more dynamic range at base iso. This is an almost default setting for landscape. Just because you mention landscape in particular I recommend one of your Nikon options

 

[Peeb]

As said both are great. It is said that Nikon cameras have more dynamic range at base iso. This is an almost default setting for landscape. Just because you mention landscape in particular I recommend one of your Nikon options

I forgot to mention that- you are right.

 

[Ido]

You should at least consider cameras like the Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark II and Fujifilm X-T10. They offer a ton in a smaller and lighter package than the DSLRs, without much compromise. In fact, for what you plan on using the camera for, there’s practically no compromise at all—a DSLR won’t have any real advantage for your uses and needs just based on it being a DSLR. It may do a better job at tracking your son and keeping him in focus while he’s moving around, but those two are pretty good at it, too, and should suffice for anything but sports in low light.

Forests: Do you mean, photographing “landscapes” inside a forest? It can get very dark there, so you should think how you’re going to handle that. The best way, no doubt, is a tripod—if you can buy one, and care to take it with you, that would be ideal. I take my tripod with me on every opportunity to photograph landscape that doesn’t involve a long/tricky hike, because it’s not easy or comfortable to walk around with, but it pays off.
If you can’t take a tripod with you, the in-body image stabilization of the E-M10 Mark II—adding 3–4 stops of leeway in shutter speed—can make a huge difference. It means that you can get a shot at, say, 1/4 sec. shutter speed, f/5.6 aperture, and ISO 200, instead of 1/30 sec. just to get a sharp handheld image, with the ISO going up to 1600, or compromising on depth of field with the aperture.
If you want to shoot anything moving in the forest, and freeze its motion in the picture, image stabilization won’t help you at all, because you need a fast shutter speed just to freeze the movements. Then, the X-T10’s better high ISO performance can help, as long as you use fast lenses (f/2.8 or better). However, if that moving subject is a wild animal, then you’re better off with a DSLR.

 

[goodguy]

T6S and D5500 are both excellent cameras, they are comparable in many ways.
You can go wrong either way but I would direct you more toward the D5500 mainly because of the much better dynamic range and slightly better low light performance.