Entry level DSLR under 500 for sports pictures

[Solarflare]

I keep hearing that with canon they are alot more interchangeable.

I have no clue what you are talking about. Both Nikon and Canon cannot mount anything but their own lenses. So does any other lens mount, from anybody - they are all propietary. The only exception is Panasonic and Olympus who share the same lens mount (Micro Four Thirds).

If you buy third party, you have to get the version for the Nikon or Canon mount, respectively, or it wont work.

If you want to use an adapter, sure the Canons mount is larger and thus has a bit a better chance to get that going. But Adapters for DSLRs are still very limited. You cannot for example adapt Leica M glas to them without corrective optics (which would kill off a good chunk of the image quality and thus make the whole experiment pointless). And adapters are still a crook and a task for masochists, because nothing works anymore, no autofocus, no automatic aperture, and certainly also no lens information for the camera software (automatic compensation of lens errors) and image stabilization.

Both Nikon and Canon have a large used market. The one of Nikon is even larger, because while Canon abandoned their previous mount in 1987, Nikon is still compatible to the original mount, though lenses before 1977 need to be modified a bit to work on many current Nikon F cameras. As mentioned here in this thread already, on Canon you cannot even mount lenses specifically made for smaller sensors (named EF-S instead of just EF). Thus yes, in this respect Nikon F beats Canon EF quite clearly.

Yeah, it's good ideal,

What is a "good deal" ? The 5D / 85mm f1.8 comment was not from the OP ?

The sensor on this camera is very old, its been there since 2009, comparing it to Nikon entry level D3300 and its pretty much is behind Nikon.

So are current Canon cameras. Canon hasnt improved in sensor performance since 2009. So whats your point ?

 

[EIngerson]

You won't go wrong with any of the Canon Rebels or Nikon consumer models. But you will find some issues with low light. Especially capturing action on dark fields with inadequate lighting.

What if the camera is a low light camera with f/2.0 or f/1.4 like that of 50mm or 35mm

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

I'm not sure what you mean by "low light camera" A 35mm or 50mm is not the focal range you'd need for field sports. I'm not saying the camera won't work. there will be issues at high ISO in low light. Noisy images and blurry images.

Not to mention, most novice photographers will find F2 and F1.4 frustrating. Especially on a camera body that doesn't have that great of a focus system.

 

[beagle100]

It would be mainly for outdoor, football, soccer, etc..i was the pictures to be clear and good looking. ive been looking at the canon T5..any suggestions

like others have indicated, for sports (and other things) it's more about the lens than the camera - and it matters if you're shooting daytime or night

here's a few football and soccer pics with an "old sensor" Canon camera (older than the Canon T5 )
and a twenty year old lens you can buy on ebay or craigslist for ..... dirt cheap !!!! ...... whaaaa ????

0f course current "modern" Canon cameras are much better than Nikon cameras but hey, who's counting all the megapixels

however buying a used camera and lens could cost slightly over $500

 

[EIngerson]

Here is an example of what a consumer model can't do. This is shot under horrible field lighting. ISO 12,800

Fallbrook-6 by Eric Ingerson, on Flickr