My Camera..

[Beardedbeginner]

Currently using a Samsung NX1100 20-50mm lens. I'm undecided on either selling it and buying either a Canon or Nikon? It keep it and buy one of them anyway, will I still need my NX11 for anything with either option or will it be a waste of space?
Any advice? Which is a good Canon or Nikon for not a monster price tag?

Thanks in advance

 

[TCampbell]

I'm curious as to why you're interested in switching. You have an APS-C size sensor MILC camera and you're considering switching to an APS-C size sensor DSLR camera. Is there something you're unable to do with your current equipment?

This is not to say that switching cameras is a bad idea -- but if you do decide to switch, it'd be nice if the new camera corrected any deficiencies you might be experiencing with your current camera. But right now, we have no idea what those deficiencies might be -- which makes it tough to recommend a new camera.

 

[Beardedbeginner]

My reason for wanting to change is I like the idea of the viewfinder along with having the LCD to view my potential photo.

I also like the look of the Canon.

I'm not overly knowledgeable on the working of the camera in regards to its sensors as you mentioned.

I have been looking for lenses for my NX1100 (for distance shooting) and all searches result in most fitting for other cameras but mine, basically another reason for changing is hassle of searing for the correct fitting lens.

I have bought myself a 500mm lens really cheap but I had to get an adapter and then fiddle with a sensor inside because it wouldn't recognize it.

It's the little things that's making wonder.

Do you know the image quality difference?

Thank you for the reply

Sorry for waffling on...

 

[Solarflare]

Canon, followed by Nikon, are the market leaders. They have the largest development teams and overall the biggest amount of Knowhow, also in the details. A Canon or Nikon will usually produce great image quality etc right out of camera, without having to fiddle with raw software, and have pretty good ergonomics etc as well; they will get the job done, and usually very efficiently. However, their cameras are also a bit "boring" and "conventional", and they are slow to pick up on newer features like 4K Video.

Both Canon and Nikon have pretty good lens parks for full frame. Their APS-C offerings however are less great; for example Canon offers a good affordable wide angle zoom EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS for about 300$, but Nikons wide angle offerings for APS-C are awful, at least twice as expensive than the aforementioned lens and qualitywise disappointing. Still both companies in general offer very good quality and only have few stinkers among their offerings, the bad lenses are often the old ones that cant keep up with the ever crazier getting resolutions. Still a lot of the old glas keeps up surprisingly well; some of the really old lenses are still bitingly sharp even on 36 or 50 Megapixel sensors; examples for that include the Nikon AI-S 80-200mm f4.5 N zoom or the Nikon AF 55mm f2.8 micro prime lens (Nikon lenses are called "Nikkor" but for reduced confusion I usually write Nikon instead).



Samsung is a newcomer in the photography market and a huge company that does all sorts of things. Just like with Sony, photography thus is only one thing among many they do. Thats why their cameras, just like those from Sony, dont appear being made from photographers.

Unlike Nikon and Canon who are kind of operating exclusively in this field; Nikon does all kinds of optics in general as well and Canon on top of that also does printers.

Samsung is officially extremely ambitious in their cameras, include all kinds of newest tech and in some models they include a lot of smartphone technology as well. However, they massively lack in the aforementioned Knowhow department, and thus their cameras are riddled with oddities. For example they made extremely ambitious claims about their cameras autofocus, saying they wanted the best of them all (a goal thats probably right now unarchievable with mirrorless cameras, though some other companies had quite some breakthroughs in this respect) but ended up with a camera that wouldnt find focus in the dark at all, just endlessly moving the focus around without ever locking on - LOL ! Its possible they have fixed that now, though. Still it was funny back then.

One says lenses are the most important part of any camera. There are also surprinsingly few tests about Samsung lenses, and there arent that many choices to being with, and the available choices are a bit odd and impractical, and the test results of them are not exciting either; for example the Superzoom Samsung NX 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 ED OIS iFn basically has no image quality worth mentioning and is possibly the worst lens I ever read a test about.



All in all, if you want special features of the Samsung, such as 4K Video or smartphone functionality, sure you can go for it, but - the best bang for the buck ? Nah, for that I think Nikon and Canon entry level DSLRs are unbeatable.

 

[TCampbell]

In the DSLR world, there are primarily two major sensor sizes.

The larger size is referred to as "full frame" and the imaging sensor is roughly the same size as a single frame of 35mm film (36mm x 24mm).

The smaller size is referred to as "APS-C" and the imaging sensor is roughly the same size as a single frame of "Advanced Photo System - Classic" film. The sensor is about 50-60% smaller than a "full frame" sensor and measures roughly 22 x 15mm (with liberal rounding). APS-C film cameras were introduced near the end of the popular period of consumer film cameras. These were film cameras that had some "digital" features in that the film was a "drop-in" type cartridge (you didn't have to manually feed the film leader across the camera and into the take-up spool), the camera could automatically tell what type of film was loaded (the ISO/ASA value as well as the number of exposures on the film.)

The initial reason for the introduction of the APS-C size sensor was that the most expensive component in a DSLR camera was the sensor itself. The first cameras were extremely expensive, but this expense could be reduced by using a smaller sensor. This allowed the cameras to be priced such that ordinary consumers could afford them.

Full frame cameras are still more expensive, but whereas they used to be in the $3000+ range, Canon and Nikon have introduced "entry level" full-frame bodies which cost less than $2000 (in contrast... an "entry level" APS-C sensor DSLR camera is less than $1000.)

What you need to know:

All Canon and Nikon DSLR cameras will have the standard exposure modes of full auto, program, aperture priority, shutter priority, and manual. They'll all shoot video (but there are some differences in the video features depending on model.) The entry level bodies typically have some "scene-based" shooting modes ("night scene", "landscape", "action", etc. where selecting the scene mode causes the camera to use settings which tend to be more optimal for that situation.)

The "entry level" range for Canon are all the cameras with "Rebel" in the name. These camera bodies are all under $1000 (and usually still under $1000 even after you add the lens. The systems are commonly sold as a body+lens "kit".) But this entry range divides into a lower and upper end. The lower end (less expensive, but more basic) are the bodies that do not have the letter "i" suffix after the model. E.g. the T3 and T5 are the lower end of the entry range (the T5 was introduced a few years after the T3 so the T5 is a slightly newer design.) The upper end of the range have the "i" suffix... e.g. the T3i, T5i, and this year they introduced the T6i. They also introduced a variant of the T6i called the T6s. The "s" adds some features normally only found on mid-range bodies... it has an extra LCD panel on the top of the camera with some extra buttons to get instant access to more commonly used features (this 2nd LCD panel is standard on all mid-range and high-end cameras). It also has a 2nd control dial -- the 2nd dial is on the back of the camera. This allows for more versatile control of exposure. E.g. in "manual" exposure mode the front dial (the wheel by the shutter button) sets the shutter speed and the rear dial sets the aperture. On the T6i model you have a press a 2nd button while adjusting the front wheel to control aperture.

On a side-note about Canon... most Rebel bodies are merely incremental changes from one model to the next. That was true up until they introduced the Rebel T6i and T6s. Those cameras have several notable upgrades in sensor, focus system, body controls, etc. and while they are the most expensive of the Rebel line, they are probably more "worth" their asking price given the number of improvements that have been made.

I'm not a Nikon shooter so I don't know the nuances of each Nikon body. But Nikon also has an entry range and these bodies are also split into a lower end and higher end range. The D3000 series of model numbers (D3000, D3100, D3200, D3300) are the entry bodies. The D5000 series (D5000, D5100, D5200, D5300, and D5500 -- to my knowledge there was never a D5400.)

At this point I should probably mention a difference in the auto-focus between Nikon and Canon. Nikon historically used an in-body focus motor. Canon never used an in-body focus motor... the motors were always in the lenses themselves. Nikon started introducing lenses that have the focus motor in the lens and simultaneously started introducing entry-level bodies that no longer included in-body focus motors (in other words, they started to convert over to the Canon way of just having the focus motor in the lens.) No Nikon entry-level bodies have a focus motor (you only find that feature in mid-range and above bodies). This is a very important considering when looking at lenses because some Nikon lenses can only auto-focus if the body has a focus motor. There are numerous lenses for which Nikon makes a version that has a focus motor and a version that doesn't. Nikon lenses that have their own focus motor will have "AF-S" in the name. Nikon lenses that rely on the body to provide the focus motor will have "AF" in the name (without the "-S" suffix.) You can attach an "AF" lens to an entry-level body... it just won't auto-focus. If you go with a Nikon D3000 series or D5000 series body you will need to be aware of that difference when shopping for lenses.

As you said you don't want a "monster price tag" I'm going to ignore the higher end models. Everything else in the line-up for both companies is more than $1000 for the "body only" (no lens.) But both companies offer a range of mid-level and high-end models.

 

[Beardedbeginner]

Interesting, I'm not really bothered about 4k as I don't see the point as I have nothing to view the full quality on (4k TV or screen)

I'll certainly be looking at buy a Canon in the near future, thank you!

 

[Derrel]

>> Nikon historically used an in-body focus motor. Canon never used an in-body focus motor... the motors were always in the lenses themselves. Nikon started introducing lenses that have the focus motor in the lens and simultaneously started introducing entry-level bodies that no longer included in-body focus motors.

Not even remotely close or accurate Tim. Not even close .

Nikon premiered in-lens silent wave motor focusing in 1992 with the AF-i lens technology. The Nikon D40 premiered in the spring of 2007, and it has no in-body focusing motor.

So your characterization of "simultaneous" introduction of in-lens focusing technology and simultaneous appearance of Nikon cameras with no in-body focusing motor is off by a slight, 15-year time frame. You are only off by a decade and a half. Amusing.

 

[Solarflare]

The smaller size is referred to as "APS-C" and the imaging sensor is roughly the same size as a single frame of "Advanced Photo System - Classic" film. The sensor is about 50-60% smaller than a "full frame" sensor and measures roughly 22 x 15mm (with liberal rounding).

For the record, APS-C is 24x16mm if rounded correctly. Only Canon uses smaller APS-C sensors, which would round to 22x15mm.

Image sensor format - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

=> APS-C is 22.3x14.9mm for Canon, for the Rest of the world its 23.6x15.6mm

The entry level bodies typically have some "scene-based" shooting modes

AFAICS Newbies use AUTO, and then you progress to P/A/S/M.

Scene modes ? Nobody I ever met cares.

Heck, even the companies dont care. They never bother to clearly document what these modes exactly do.

The only scene mode I ever used was "night vision" (or how it was called) on the D5100 because it clearly stated: will use ISO 100k, will produce black/white photo, will produce low res JPEG only. It wasnt very useful really but it was a nice toy.

The "entry level" range for Canon are all the cameras with "Rebel" in the name.

Thats only the case in the USA.

I'm not a Nikon shooter so I don't know the nuances of each Nikon body.

Right now its simple:
D3x00 - as cheap as possible in all parts.
D5x00 - good parts, and flip screen, but still entry level controls.
D7x00 - semi-pro line with good controls and features (actually sufficient for pretty much any professional, except sports shooters who would want higher fps) but no more flipscreen.
D300s - pro line from the stone ages, no successor since forever (Canon also took AGES and AGES to update the 7D to the new 7D mark 2).

Not even remotely close or accurate Tim.

I would like to add that there isnt a single DX lens that isnt AF-S and all Nikon cameras to date without a motor are entry level DX.

So the scenario when you end up not having a motor for your autofocusing lens is if

(a) You are using an entry level DSLR, currently named D3x00 or D5x00, with a DX / APS-C sensor.

(b) and you are using an old lens designed in film times, when everything was FX / full frame.

The way Canonists (people who use exclusively Canon) often try to construct a DISADVANTAGE out of the fact that Nikon kept being backwards compatible with its mount is astonishing. You can use lenses from 1977 on on current models, the Nikon Df can do so with every Nikon F lens ever made, and lenses before 1977 can be slightly changed in order to make them work on all current Nikon cameras.

 

[jcdeboever]

The reason I chose Nikon was I could still use a couple lens from my Nikon film and they work fine but I have to manual focus which I'm used to anyway. Saved a few bucks. I am saving up for a full frame Nikon, probably get one at end of 2016. I will also get 3 FX lens for it as well... 28mm, 50mm, and a 85mm. May splurge for a fisheye, macro, or long range zoom. I am considering a Pentax medium format digital as well but may be out of my price range... Too far down the road, I'm just trying to learn my DSLR and get good with it. Right now, its embarrassing enough to not want to post photos.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[TCampbell]

Not even remotely close or accurate Tim.

I would like to add that there isnt a single DX lens that isnt AF-S and all Nikon cameras to date without a motor are entry level DX.

So the scenario when you end up not having a motor for your autofocusing lens is if

(a) You are using an entry level DSLR, currently named D3x00 or D5x00, with a DX / APS-C sensor.

(b) and you are using an old lens designed in film times, when everything was FX / full frame.

The way Canonists (people who use exclusively Canon) often try to construct a DISADVANTAGE out of the fact that Nikon kept being backwards compatible with its mount is astonishing. You can use lenses from 1977 on on current models, the Nikon Df can do so with every Nikon F lens ever made, and lenses before 1977 can be slightly changed in order to make them work on all current Nikon cameras.

Do Nikon D3*** and D5*** series bodies only take DX lenses? You cannot attach an FX lens to these bodies? That would be surprising news to me.

It's a difference and camera shoppers should be aware... lest they see the $132 Nikon 50mm f/1.8D lens (an AF lens) and think it'll work with their camera, only to find out that what they actually needed was the $215 Nikon 50mm f/1.8G (an AF-S lens).

Beyond the initial "kit" lens, a buyer might want a low focal ratio prime and very commonly the recommend lens is the "nifty fifty" ... a 50mm prime lens and these are almost always f/1.8 focal ratio lenses. Canon's offering is $125. Sony's offering is $143 (on sale... looks like it may normally be $168). Pentax's offering is $103 (looks like that's on sale too... normal price is $117). They're all under $150. Nikon has a 50mm f/1.8 lens for less than $150... it's $132. But that lens won't auto-focus on a D3*** or D5*** series body. To get the auto-focusing version (which is the only version you want) you have to buy a different Nikon lens and that lens is $217 -- considerable higher than every other camera & lens maker in the industry.

I don't put a lot of emphasis on the importance of "which" camera brand someone buys. I think any camera should be able to help their owners capture fantastic images. But if someone is concerned about prices and working with a limited budget (and that probably describes the majority of shoppers) then I think it's being dishonest not be point out that difference.

Try to maintain some semblance of objectivity.

 

[Mr.Photo]

Not even remotely close or accurate Tim.

I would like to add that there isnt a single DX lens that isnt AF-S and all Nikon cameras to date without a motor are entry level DX.

So the scenario when you end up not having a motor for your autofocusing lens is if

(a) You are using an entry level DSLR, currently named D3x00 or D5x00, with a DX / APS-C sensor.

(b) and you are using an old lens designed in film times, when everything was FX / full frame.

The way Canonists (people who use exclusively Canon) often try to construct a DISADVANTAGE out of the fact that Nikon kept being backwards compatible with its mount is astonishing. You can use lenses from 1977 on on current models, the Nikon Df can do so with every Nikon F lens ever made, and lenses before 1977 can be slightly changed in order to make them work on all current Nikon cameras.

Do Nikon D3*** and D5*** series bodies only take DX lenses? You cannot attach an FX lens to these bodies? That would be surprising news to me.

It's a difference and camera shoppers should be aware... lest they see the $132 Nikon 50mm f/1.8D lens (an AF lens) and think it'll work with their camera, only to find out that what they actually needed was the $215 Nikon 50mm f/1.8G (an AF-S lens).

Beyond the initial "kit" lens, a buyer might want a low focal ratio prime and very commonly the recommend lens is the "nifty fifty" ... a 50mm prime lens and these are almost always f/1.8 focal ratio lenses. Canon's offering is $125. Sony's offering is $143 (on sale... looks like it may normally be $168). Pentax's offering is $103 (looks like that's on sale too... normal price is $117). They're all under $150. Nikon has a 50mm f/1.8 lens for less than $150... it's $132. But that lens won't auto-focus on a D3*** or D5*** series body. To get the auto-focusing version (which is the only version you want) you have to buy a different Nikon lens and that lens is $217 -- considerable higher than every other camera & lens maker in the industry.

I don't put a lot of emphasis on the importance of "which" camera brand someone buys. I think any camera should be able to help their owners capture fantastic images. But if someone is concerned about prices and working with a limited budget (and that probably describes the majority of shoppers) then I think it's being dishonest not be point out that difference.

Try to maintain some semblance of objectivity.

Full frame lenses ("FX" for Nikon "EF" for Canon) can be used on APS-C sized cameras but not the other way around. This is because the rear lens element on an APS-C specific lens is too small and will most likely cause vignetting if used on a Full Frame sensor camera. The Nikon D3x00 and D5x00 camera's can use both DX or FX lenses. In addition, entry level Nikon's can use the older AF series auto focus lenses with full metering capability. They just will not auto focus due to not having the focusing motor in the camera body to drive the focus ring on the lens.

 

[Solarflare]

Do Nikon D3*** and D5*** series bodies only take DX lenses?

Thats not claimed or implied anywhere in the posting you quoted.

Full frame lenses ("FX" for Nikon "EF" for Canon) can be used on APS-C sized cameras but not the other way around.

Wrong, only Canon disallows that. Nikon allows to use DX lenses on FX bodies. My AF-S 35mm f1.8 DX looks a bit funny on my D750, and it has a pronounced vignette and certainly no great edge performance, but it still has some light there and actually the look is quite pleasing. Cutting the image to 4:5 or 16:9 would fix the image pretty perfectly.

 

[raventepes]

Just out of curiosity...how about switching to Micro Four Thirds? Something like the Olympus OM-D EM-10?

 

[TCampbell]

Do Nikon D3*** and D5*** series bodies only take DX lenses?

Thats not claimed or implied anywhere in the posting you quoted.

Full frame lenses ("FX" for Nikon "EF" for Canon) can be used on APS-C sized cameras but not the other way around.

Wrong, only Canon disallows that. Nikon allows to use DX lenses on FX bodies. My AF-S 35mm f1.8 DX looks a bit funny on my D750, and it has a pronounced vignette and certainly no great edge performance, but it still has some light there and actually the look is quite pleasing. Cutting the image to 4:5 or 16:9 would fix the image pretty perfectly.

So in other words... it looks like crap? Do you recommend people use lenses that create photos that look like crap?

You're being pedantic.

 

[ak_]

will I still need my NX11 for anything with either option or will it be a waste of space?
Any advice? Which is a good Canon or Nikon for not a monster price tag?

Thanks in advance

It's good to have at least two cameras. Three is better if you can find a primary purpose for each, with the bonus of some overlap in case (when) one fails. I have a 4/3 and a Nikon SLr that share the same Tamron Adaptall2 lenses. The 4/3 is my long lens camera, the Nikon is wide to medium tele. My third camera is a pocket compact with a 24mm very wide lens, mainly for b&w, and I usually carry it everywhere I go. The only lens that I use that departs from the idea is an additional Nikon wide-to-mid AF lens which could be adapted onto 4/3 but has no external aperture ring so is limited to that body. If it went faulty, I would just buy a wide prime -e.g Tamron 24mm- to cover what generally equates to a '35mm' wide-standard FL, and fit that lens into the existing scheme. The three other AD2 lenses are currently use cover from 70mm through 400mm in equivalent terms of FL field of view/usage.