Choosing the right DSLR

[bribrius]

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)

hang on , hang on, trying to think.....
lalalalalala

i think the t3i won the entry level dslr award. i read a article to something of the effect. Bang for the buck best entry level dslr...

 

[robbins.photo]

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)

hang on , hang on, trying to think.....
lalalalalala

i think the t3i won the entry level dslr award. i read a article to something of the effect. Bang for the buck best entry level dslr...

Well of the two I really think the Nikon would be the better choice for landscapes, but the T3i is also a viable option. The thing that would really make me lean toward Nikon in particular is not only the better lowlight and dynamic range, but also the upgrade path available. In a few years time if the OP decides to upgrade they will have a lot of choices that will have a really big impact on the final images because of the upgraded APS-C sensors available in newer model Nikons. So in a few years the OP could decide to go from a D5100 to a D5200 and get a 24 mp sensor with even better capabilities.

If the OP were to go with the Canon T3I they could upgrade to a lot of different models, but most of them use the same sensor. As a result to really upgrade in that department you need to go all the way up to a 70d or something full frame. Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of other useful features and options available in other Canon models that might appeal to folks looking to upgrade, but really to get a true sensor upgrade it's a pretty big jump in price. If the OP were shooting something like sports where buffer size might be a consideration I would probably lean more toward the Canon. But in this particular case I really think the D5100 is going to be his/her best bet. Just my 2 cents worth of course, YMMV.

 

[ruifo]

In this price range range, either a new D3200 or a used/refurbished D5200 would be great.
If you can, for for the D5200.

 

[JerryLove]

Well of the two I really think the Nikon would be the better choice for landscapes, but the T3i is also a viable option.

I agree here. For landscapes the Nikon's advantages (here I am thinking of resolution and DR) would seem to outweigh the Canon's advantages (focus speed, extended burst speed, etc) ... the unknown factor being ergonomics, which is always a personal choice.

The thing that would really make me lean toward Nikon in particular is not only the better lowlight and dynamic range, but also the upgrade path available. In a few years time if the OP decides to upgrade they will have a lot of choices that will have a really big impact on the final images because of the upgraded APS-C sensors available in newer model Nikons. So in a few years the OP could decide to go from a D5100 to a D5200 and get a 24 mp sensor with even better capabilities.

If we assume that the OP will upgrade to a current camera, and we assume that the OP will not change their needs (wanting video or sports photography), then I agree with you.

But I don't think those two assumptions are good ones. We don't know what the next generation from Canon and Nikon will bring. Perhaps Canon will catch up / pass Nikon for sensor performance. Perhaps Nikon will expand its lead. If we look into the past, we see them leap-frogging each other.

I also don't know that the OP will stick to landscapes (and yet want to upgrade bodies).

I do agree with the overall sentiment: Both the Canon T3i and Nikon (5200/5300/etc) will do this job and do it well; but of the two the Nikon likly offers more for landscape photography.

I also agree with [FONT=Tahoma, Calibri, Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif]JustJazzie, that there's no reason to limit this to the two major DSLR manufacturers. I'm a big fan of Sony DSLR's in-body image stabilization. The Samsung mirror-less seems to have a lot going for it. The Olympus Micro-four-thirds don't generally keep up, but are still quite good and a fraction of the cost.

If it were me, and if I didn't already have my familiarity with Canon, and if I didn't have some concern about transportation (like you, I like big cameras), I'd get the Nikon DSLR (best image) or Sony A77 (I really like the idea of being able to save money on lenses by not getting IS/VC/etc).[/FONT]

 

[bribrius]

Well of the two I really think the Nikon would be the better choice for landscapes, but the T3i is also a viable option.

I agree here. For landscapes the Nikon's advantages (here I am thinking of resolution and DR) would seem to outweigh the Canon's advantages (focus speed, extended burst speed, etc) ... the unknown factor being ergonomics, which is always a personal choice.

The thing that would really make me lean toward Nikon in particular is not only the better lowlight and dynamic range, but also the upgrade path available. In a few years time if the OP decides to upgrade they will have a lot of choices that will have a really big impact on the final images because of the upgraded APS-C sensors available in newer model Nikons. So in a few years the OP could decide to go from a D5100 to a D5200 and get a 24 mp sensor with even better capabilities.

If we assume that the OP will upgrade to a current camera, and we assume that the OP will not change their needs (wanting video or sports photography), then I agree with you.

But I don't think those two assumptions are good ones. We don't know what the next generation from Canon and Nikon will bring. Perhaps Canon will catch up / pass Nikon for sensor performance. Perhaps Nikon will expand its lead. If we look into the past, we see them leap-frogging each other.

I also don't know that the OP will stick to landscapes (and yet want to upgrade bodies).

I do agree with the overall sentiment: Both the Canon T3i and Nikon (5200/5300/etc) will do this job and do it well; but of the two the Nikon likly offers more for landscape photography.

I also agree with JustJazzie, that there's no reason to limit this to the two major DSLR manufacturers. I'm a big fan of Sony DSLR's in-body image stabilization. The Samsung mirror-less seems to have a lot going for it. The Olympus Micro-four-thirds don't generally keep up, but are still quite good and a fraction of the cost.

If it were me, and if I didn't already have my familiarity with Canon, and if I didn't have some concern about transportation (like you, I like big cameras), I'd get the Nikon DSLR (best image) or Sony A77 (I really like the idea of being able to save money on lenses by not getting IS/VC/etc).

saving money is surely a good thing. you just changed my vote.

 

[spykesz]

Thanks for everybody's answer, I'm considering a refurbished Nikon d5200, and probably will buy it.
Cheers!