Choosing the right DSLR

[spykesz]

Hello,
I am looking for an upgrade from my Nikon s9200 to any DSLR camera.
Never shot with a DSLR before, so a beginner camera would be nice.
Looking for something that does good both with video and photos.

My budget is about 650$, and the camera manufacturer is not really important for me.
I've been thinking about a 600d/t3i, but I'd like to hear somebody elses opinion.

Cheers!

 

[robbins.photo]

Well all DSLR's will do ok with both photo and video, but some will be better in one category while others might be better in another. I guess my question would be, which is more important, the photos or the video?

I'd also be curious as to what types of pictures you plan on taking, as again different cameras have different strong and weakpoints. For the most part you don't really need something that takes a lot of frames in a short period of time if your shooting landscapes, but HDR might be a useful feature for those types of shots. Whereas if your shooting pictures of indoor sporting events then lowlight capabilies and shooting speed both become important considerations.

So really before I'd be willing to make any kind of recommendation I'd need to know a lot more about where you plan to go from here and what types of features are really going to suit your needs best.

 

[weepete]

If I were buying in your price range I would go for either a Nikon D3200 or a 3300. If you think you'll be mostly shooting landscapes the 3200 would probably be the better option (is it has more dynamic range) but if low light, sports or wildlife is more your thing I'd go for the 3300 as it has better noise at high ISOs and a slightly faster framerate (5 fps as opposed to 4). The simple fact is that below the top end Canon sensors are badly outdated right now and are in desperate need of upgrades compared to the Nikons

Bear in mind that lenses are expensive but good glass will hold it's value and will probably make more of a better quality photo than the choice of body. I recon you want to spend at least as much on a lens as you spend on your body if you want high quality photos, and bear in mind that you'll probably end up wanting at least three lenses to cover the popular focal ranges.

 

[DarkShadow]

I would recommend a refurbished Nikon D5200 thats within your budget and has a swivel Flip screen that IMO is a huge advantage over a fixed screen when it comes to video. Here is a link from a very reputable retailer. Refurbished Nikon D5200 DSLR Camera w/18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR - Black - Refurbished 1503 Factory refurbished is great way to safe a lot of money.

 

[JustJazzie]

Depending on what you are shooting, you might look into your MILC options as well. The sony a6000 coming out in April looks like a beast! But that also means the nex 6 will be dropping in price soon.

I'm pretty biased towards the mirrorless category. I gave up my heavy- back breaking DSLR over a year ago and you couldn't pay me to switch back! Image quality is superb, and the small package ensures I never have ask myself "do I REALLY want to drag the camera along?" My FAVORITE feature that I could actually cry if I had to give up is focus peaking. I have terrible eye sight, even with glasses and they actually don't make a single contact lens to correct my vision. With focus peaking, the camera highlights in your chosen color (I use yellow) the areas that are in focus so you can be assured you are nailing focus every time. I also love the DMF feature where it does auto focus and then I can fine tune focus manually. When I turn the focus dial my screen changes to a 100% crop of my focus point so even my poor eyes can really tell when I have nailed focus! I don't shoot video, but they are supposed to be more than qualified for the job. The Sony's have flip screens, and also autofocus in video (I know my friends 5dmkiii does not, so I'm not sure how many do.)

The downsides to MILCs are slightly slower AF time (although the a6000 coming out claims to be faster than a dslr) and for now, fewer native lens options. However there are plenty of adapters that enable you to use ANY lens. So if you are shooting wildlife, or indoor sports, perhaps a dslr would be better for you until MILC's catch up.

Edit to add: if this is your first interchangeable lens camera then the "down sides" to mirror-less will probably not even phase you since you "don't know what you're missing" when I first got my sony, I HATEED the "slow" autofocus, but I learned to work with my camera and now i don't even notice.


One more:Just food for thought: SLR'S were invented so you could see what you were shooting. The image is reflected off of a mirror into a pentaprism so what you see is what you get. This was great for film cameras! But in our digital age, you really don't need that mirror as we have more advanced ways of seeing the image. So IMHO the mirror just wastes space and makes the camera needlessly bulkier. The future is definitely in MILC's as much as nikon and canon don't want to admit this. Many manufacturers and professionals are embracing the fact that bigger isn't always better.

 

[robbins.photo]

Depending on what you are shooting, you might look into your MILC options as well. The sony a6000 coming out in April looks like a beast! But that also means the nex 6 will be dropping in price soon.

I'm pretty biased towards the mirrorless category. I gave up my heavy- back breaking DSLR over a year ago and you couldn't pay me to switch back! Image quality is superb, and the small package ensures I never have ask myself "do I REALLY want to drag the camera along?" My FAVORITE feature that I could actually cry if I had to give up is focus peaking. I have terrible eye sight, even with glasses and they actually don't make a single contact lens to correct my vision. With focus peaking, the camera highlights in your chosen color (I use yellow) the areas that are in focus so you can be assured you are nailing focus every time. I also love the DMF feature where it does auto focus and then I can fine tune focus manually. When I turn the focus dial my screen changes to a 100% crop of my focus point so even my poor eyes can really tell when I have nailed focus! I don't shoot video, but they are supposed to be more than qualified for the job. The Sony's have flip screens, and also autofocus in video (I know my friends 5dmkiii does not, so I'm not sure how many do.)

The downsides to MILCs are slightly slower AF time (although the a6000 coming out claims to be faster than a dslr) and for now, fewer native lens options. However there are plenty of adapters that enable you to use ANY lens. So if you are shooting wildlife, or indoor sports, perhaps a dslr would be better for you until MILC's catch up.

Edit to add: if this is your first interchangeable lens camera then the "down sides" to mirror-less will probably not even phase you since you "don't know what you're missing" when I first got my sony, I HATEED the "slow" autofocus, but I learned to work with my camera and now i don't even notice.


One more:Just food for thought: SLR'S were invented so you could see what you were shooting. The image is reflected off of a mirror into a pentaprism so what you see is what you get. This was great for film cameras! But in our digital age, you really don't need that mirror as we have more advanced ways of seeing the image. So IMHO the mirror just wastes space and makes the camera needlessly bulkier. The future is definitely in MILC's as much as nikon and canon don't want to admit this. Many manufacturers and professionals are embracing the fact that bigger isn't always better.

Lol... well I guess it sort of depends on the person really. I've had some experience with EVF myself, and so far I haven't found one that doesn't start to lag behind when you start shooting a burst, or one that doesn't exhibit issues in low light situations. Even though the mirror technology used in DSLR's has been around since before digital there are still some things the electronic versions still can't do that it can. Now if these aren't important considerations to you because you don't shoot burst mode or don't use it in lowlight then certainly nothing wrong with going mirrorless. But it's not always the best option for everyone.

The other consideration is that not all of us are petite. I have large, ape like hands. Most modern non-DSLR cameras are entirely too small for me to work effectively. Truth be told there are many times when I wish my D5200 was just a little bit bigger so that the buttons were a little wider apart which would make it easier for me to do certain things and not have to worry about catching the wrong button with my big clumsy hands at the wrong time.

That and the vast majority of what I shoot is telephoto - I actually added a battery grip not for the extra battery power it provides but rather for the extra weight it adds to the camera, helping it balance the 70-200 mm F/2.8 I usually use. It provides a lot better balance against the heavy lens and makes it much easier to shoot with - I can't even begin to imagine what it would be like trying to hang 3 lbs of lens on a tiny mirrorless with an adapter and attempting to use it all day. But there are a lot of advantages to mirrorless cameras, I'd like to get a mirrorless myself at some point to compliment the gear I already have, but I'd rather wait a bit and see where things go before making that kind of investment.

But like all things camera a lot depends on what your using it for as to what your best option is going to be in the long run.

 

[JustJazzie]

Lol... well I guess it sort of depends on the person really. I've had some experience with EVF myself, and so far I haven't found one that doesn't start to lag behind when you start shooting a burst, or one that doesn't exhibit issues in low light situations. Even though the mirror technology used in DSLR's has been around since before digital there are still some things the electronic versions still can't do that it can. Now if these aren't important considerations to you because you don't shoot burst mode or don't use it in lowlight then certainly nothing wrong with going mirrorless. But it's not always the best option for everyone. The other consideration is that not all of us are petite. I have large, ape like hands. Most modern non-DSLR cameras are entirely too small for me to work effectively. Truth be told there are many times when I wish my D5200 was just a little bit bigger so that the buttons were a little wider apart which would make it easier for me to do certain things and not have to worry about catching the wrong button with my big clumsy hands at the wrong time. That and the vast majority of what I shoot is telephoto - I actually added a battery grip not for the extra battery power it provides but rather for the extra weight it adds to the camera, helping it balance the 70-200 mm F/2.8 I usually use. It provides a lot better balance against the heavy lens and makes it much easier to shoot with - I can't even begin to imagine what it would be like trying to hang 3 lbs of lens on a tiny mirrorless with an adapter and attempting to use it all day. But there are a lot of advantages to mirrorless cameras, I'd like to get a mirrorless myself at some point to compliment the gear I already have, but I'd rather wait a bit and see where things go before making that kind of investment. But like all things camera a lot depends on what your using it for as to what your best option is going to be in the long run.

Hehehe. It's very true, it depends on what you are shooting (I did mention that in my post right?) the weight thing cracks me up I can't imagine TRYING to bulk up my camera. Although, my hands are practically miniature. I had to pass up several wedding ring options because they couldn't go down to a size 4. :-( as for the bust mode- did you see the new a6000? There is a YouTube demonstration, but it's 11 fps WITH continuos AF. it nailed the shot of a fbird dying toward the camera every time at f1.8 (or was it 1.4?) IMPRESSIVE!

As for the evf- I personally don't even use it Except in bright sunlight. A bigger view is better for my poor eyesight. And I don't use burst mode often/ever.


I will admit low light can be troublesome- but I found a way to work around that with my camera (turn off live view, turn off the AF assist lamp, and prefocus helps even it up) I won't lie- I'm looking to upgrade my body as the tech improves but *for me* the downsides aren't enough reason to go back!

 

[brunerww]

Hello,
I am looking for an upgrade from my Nikon s9200 to any DSLR camera.
Never shot with a DSLR before, so a beginner camera would be nice.
Looking for something that does good both with video and photos.

My budget is about 650$, and the camera manufacturer is not really important for me.
I've been thinking about a 600d/t3i, but I'd like to hear somebody elses opinion.

Cheers!

Hi spykesz - the 600D/T3i was a fine still camera back in 2010, but it is not a very good choice for video. It has a 12 minute continuous clip length limit, no video autofocus and its viewfinder goes blank when you shoot video - (this is true for all DSLRs).

If you want a camera with lightning fast video autofocus and a viewfinder that actually works when you shoot video, you should consider a mirrorless DSLM such as the Panasonic G6 (531.50€ at Amazon DE) instead of a DSLR. It also records at 1080/50p in Europe - for smooth in-camera slow motion, while Canons are limited to 1080/30p. You can also buy a power zoom for this camera and use it like a camcorder.

Here is the video image quality you can expect from this camera. This clip was recorded with the 332€ 14-42mm power zoom at a recent outdoor event in Sweden:

[video=vimeo;86145944]http://vimeo.com/86145944[/video]​

I moderate the G6 group over on Vimeo - you can find more examples of high quality video produced by this camera there: https://vimeo.com/groups/dmcg6


It's a very good still camera too: Flickr: The Panasonic LUMIX DMC-G6 Pool


Hope this is helpful!

Bill

 

[goodguy]

The camera I would recommend would be the Nikon D5200 with its 18-55mm VR kit lens.

Thats a very good camera, it is better then the t3i it has a more modern and more capable sensor with better low light performence and better dynamic range.

 

[spykesz]

Well all DSLR's will do ok with both photo and video, but some will be better in one category while others might be better in another. I guess my question would be, which is more important, the photos or the video?

I'd also be curious as to what types of pictures you plan on taking, as again different cameras have different strong and weakpoints. For the most part you don't really need something that takes a lot of frames in a short period of time if your shooting landscapes, but HDR might be a useful feature for those types of shots. Whereas if your shooting pictures of indoor sporting events then lowlight capabilies and shooting speed both become important considerations.

So really before I'd be willing to make any kind of recommendation I'd need to know a lot more about where you plan to go from here and what types of features are really going to suit your needs best.

I'd mostly be shooting landscapes, and i'd also like some good low light performance. Not really going to shoot any sports so fps is not that important to me.

Thanks for all the replies, but the d5200 is kinda out of my budget, since I'm looking for new cameras.

 

[jaomul]

Well all DSLR's will do ok with both photo and video, but some will be better in one category while others might be better in another. I guess my question would be, which is more important, the photos or the video?

I'd also be curious as to what types of pictures you plan on taking, as again different cameras have different strong and weakpoints. For the most part you don't really need something that takes a lot of frames in a short period of time if your shooting landscapes, but HDR might be a useful feature for those types of shots. Whereas if your shooting pictures of indoor sporting events then lowlight capabilies and shooting speed both become important considerations.

So really before I'd be willing to make any kind of recommendation I'd need to know a lot more about where you plan to go from here and what types of features are really going to suit your needs best.

I'd mostly be shooting landscapes, and i'd also like some good low light performance. Not really going to shoot any sports so fps is not that important to me.

Thanks for all the replies, but the d5200 is kinda out of my budget, since I'm looking for new cameras.

The canon d600/t3i is a more than capable camera. i had its predecessor, the t2i and found it hard to fault. It took very good image quality shots. i would doubt you would be anything but happy with this camera.

Also,There are very good deals on amazon at the moment for the Nikon d5100. This is about on par spec with the t3i, however it is said that the sony sensor in this camera has better dynamic range than the canon, whether its a big deal or not, i am not sure. It has 16mp and is the one before the d5200. It is still a great camera but the focus system is a little less sophisticated than the d5200, but that does not mean it is no good. At your price point the original canon t3i you mentioned or the nikon d5100 would both be good choices (as well as a few others)

 

[robbins.photo]

Hehehe. It's very true, it depends on what you are shooting (I did mention that in my post right?) the weight thing cracks me up I can't imagine TRYING to bulk up my camera. Although, my hands are practically miniature. I had to pass up several wedding ring options because they couldn't go down to a size 4. :-( as for the bust mode- did you see the new a6000? There is a YouTube demonstration, but it's 11 fps WITH continuos AF. it nailed the shot of a fbird dying toward the camera every time at f1.8 (or was it 1.4?) IMPRESSIVE!

As for the evf- I personally don't even use it Except in bright sunlight. A bigger view is better for my poor eyesight. And I don't use burst mode often/ever. I will admit low light can be troublesome- but I found a way to work around that with my camera (turn off live view, turn off the AF assist lamp, and prefocus helps even it up) I won't lie- I'm looking to upgrade my body as the tech improves but *for me* the downsides aren't enough reason to go back!

Lol..for a while there I was actually thinking of putting some lead weight in the battery grip just to get the balance a bit better. I haven't looked at the new a6000 yet, thing about Sony is frankly they scare me a bit. At least from what I've seen they have kind of a tendency to start down one road and then suddenly switch to another, and that worries me a lot when I'm looking at investing into a camera system. i don't want to dump a bunch of money into a system and suddenly find out all the support for it has vanished because they decided to go a new direction with their next series of cameras. Might just be paranoia on my part, granted - but I have to admit it is a serious concern. But I'll see if I can't find the youtube video and give it a look.

Unfortunately there really isn't a workaround for me when it comes to lowlight, I find myself in situations where I can't carry lights and flash isn't allowed so that really makes any EVF problematic for me at best. I'm sure the tech will improve as time progresses but for now at least I'll be sticking with DSLR myself.

If only I could figure out a good way to make it heavier.. lol

 

[JustJazzie]

Lol..for a while there I was actually thinking of putting some lead weight in the battery grip just to get the balance a bit better. I haven't looked at the new a6000 yet, thing about Sony is frankly they scare me a bit. At least from what I've seen they have kind of a tendency to start down one road and then suddenly switch to another, and that worries me a lot when I'm looking at investing into a camera system. i don't want to dump a bunch of money into a system and suddenly find out all the support for it has vanished because they decided to go a new direction with their next series of cameras. Might just be paranoia on my part, granted - but I have to admit it is a serious concern. But I'll see if I can't find the youtube video and give it a look. Unfortunately there really isn't a workaround for me when it comes to lowlight, I find myself in situations where I can't carry lights and flash isn't allowed so that really makes any EVF problematic for me at best. I'm sure the tech will improve as time progresses but for now at least I'll be sticking with DSLR myself. If only I could figure out a good way to make it heavier.. lol

I do see where you are coming from there. I was frustrated to find out that my camera was the last with the Sony flash mount. I would absolutely go with a canon or nikon MILC If they made anything decent, but for now sony it is! I'm hoping as mirror less expands that I will get better emount options lens wise but I don't need TOO many len's to make me a happy girl. :thumbsup:

Funny- there was a thread on the a6000 that showed the video so I was going to link you but when I went back to it the video says "private" I wonder why?......

 

[robbins.photo]

Lol..for a while there I was actually thinking of putting some lead weight in the battery grip just to get the balance a bit better. I haven't looked at the new a6000 yet, thing about Sony is frankly they scare me a bit. At least from what I've seen they have kind of a tendency to start down one road and then suddenly switch to another, and that worries me a lot when I'm looking at investing into a camera system. i don't want to dump a bunch of money into a system and suddenly find out all the support for it has vanished because they decided to go a new direction with their next series of cameras. Might just be paranoia on my part, granted - but I have to admit it is a serious concern. But I'll see if I can't find the youtube video and give it a look. Unfortunately there really isn't a workaround for me when it comes to lowlight, I find myself in situations where I can't carry lights and flash isn't allowed so that really makes any EVF problematic for me at best. I'm sure the tech will improve as time progresses but for now at least I'll be sticking with DSLR myself. If only I could figure out a good way to make it heavier.. lol

I do see where you are coming from there. I was frustrated to find out that my camera was the last with the Sony flash mount. I would absolutely go with a canon or nikon MILC If they made anything decent, but for now sony it is! I'm hoping as mirror less expands that I will get better emount options lens wise but I don't need TOO many len's to make me a happy girl. :thumbsup:

Funny- there was a thread on the a6000 that showed the video so I was going to link you but when I went back to it the video says "private" I wonder why?......

Yup, for now at least Nikon seems to be playing a wait and see game when it comes to mirrorless, they really haven't put much out in that direction, though that might start to change in the near future. It's a shame really, from what I can see Sony does make some pretty nice stuff - but I really have a hard time getting over that trust factor and as such it's just really hard to consider dumping a bunch of money into Sony with the thought that they might change horses in the middle of the stream again and leave me stranded. Lol.

 

[robbins.photo]

Well all DSLR's will do ok with both photo and video, but some will be better in one category while others might be better in another. I guess my question would be, which is more important, the photos or the video?

I'd also be curious as to what types of pictures you plan on taking, as again different cameras have different strong and weakpoints. For the most part you don't really need something that takes a lot of frames in a short period of time if your shooting landscapes, but HDR might be a useful feature for those types of shots. Whereas if your shooting pictures of indoor sporting events then lowlight capabilies and shooting speed both become important considerations.

So really before I'd be willing to make any kind of recommendation I'd need to know a lot more about where you plan to go from here and what types of features are really going to suit your needs best.

I'd mostly be shooting landscapes, and i'd also like some good low light performance. Not really going to shoot any sports so fps is not that important to me.

Thanks for all the replies, but the d5200 is kinda out of my budget, since I'm looking for new cameras.

Well within your budget I think your best bet is going to be a D5100. The reason I'd suggest that over the newer and higher MP D3200 is that the D5100 will allow you to do HDR, which can be really nice for landscapes. You can get a refurbished D5100 from B&H with the kit lens for $429.95, so that would be well within your budget and leave you some left over for a good tripod, which is also something you are probably going to want for doing landscapes.

Used Nikon D5100 Digital SLR Camera With 18-55mm 25478B B&H

The Canon T3i would be my second choice, it would also give you the HDR capability your looking for, but it's lowlight performance and dynamic range are not as good as the Nikon.