Not another help me choose a camera thread!

[poohbear]

Well mine are not. At least not as much so as the cannon I trialed. Mostly factory settings or auto.
using auto factory specs they look like junk when comparing 5300 vs t5i. Kit lenses. What could I be doing wrong.
So when would one need the fine tuning?
What am I missing out with the 5200 over the t5i?

 

[Derrel]

Canon invented AF fine tuning years ago because they had so many lenses that were not in-spec as megapixel counts climbed above the 8 MP level back in the mid-2000's. It is something Canon invented, and it's a good sales check-mark on a specification sheet. My Canon 20D and my Canon 5D Classic never had AF fine-tune. If your entry-priced camera needs AF fine tune just to focus accurately, that doesn't say much about the quality the manufacturer maintains, does it?

LensRentals.com - Autofocus Reality Part 3A: Canon Lenses

 

[poohbear]

So if it's no longer needed, then why does nikon use it on the higher end bodies to entice buyers to upgrade as stated before?

 

[Derrel]

So if it's no longer needed, then why does nikon use it on the higher end bodies to entice buyers to upgrade as stated before?

Yeah, pretty much. I payed $4,999.95 for a brand new Nikon D2x on May 5 of 2005. That model does NOT have AF fine tune, and has never needed it on any lens, from 300/2.8, 200 f/2, down to old cheap AF lenses from the 1980's.

It's is a big comfort though to insecure buyers who buy gear based on specification sheets. Once "one company" has a feature, the "other company" will usually fall in line and offer the feature. Of course, for people who are buying low-end lenses with slow maximum apertures, stuff like 18-55 and 55-200 or 55-250 lenses which are pokey-slow, there's plenty of depth of field beyond eight feet that AF fine tune is basically not needed. And **if** AF fine tune **is** needed on low-end gear with its small max apertures, you know the tolerances the stuff is being made to are pretty loose. AF Fine tune on a $400 body??? OMG...

Again--CANON INVENTED AF fine tuning...that says a lot.

 

[Mr.Photo]

Get a Nikon world's best camera

I was leaning to the nikon 5200. But now the lack of a tuning, and it's inability to be as compatible with as many lenses as the cannon has me thinking twice.

If you're willing to go the used camera route, get a D7000. They can be had for $400-500 for the body only. Even though it's been around a few years now, it's still as good or better than most of the entry level bodies from Nikon today.

With the D7000 you would get the AF fine tune ability (which is certainly helpful as tolerances vary from lens to lens and camera to camera). Plus you will get the built in AF motor which allows you to use just about every manual or auto focus lens Nikon has ever made for the past 30+ years.

However if you've got a steady hand, and don't mind tinkering a bit you can actually adjust the AF tuning of you D5xxx or any of the entry level Nikon bodies with a simple Allen wrench. Do a YouTube search for AF adjustment on a D90, and it's the same procedure.

Of course you do this at your own risk, and if you mess up you will void your Warranty.

 

[Designer]

Well mine are not. At least not as much so as the cannon I trialed. Mostly factory settings or auto.
using auto factory specs they look like junk when comparing 5300 vs t5i. Kit lenses. What could I be doing wrong.
So when would one need the fine tuning?
What am I missing out with the 5200 over the t5i?

Has anyone here suggested that you post an example of a "horrible" photo with the EXIF intact?

Without some idea of what you are calling "junk" we don't know where to begin.

 

[poohbear]

Best buy has the d7000 with it lens for 800. Mitt go that route then.

The longer are gadfly just not as sharp, hard to get sold pictures in low light without blur, and the colors are not very natural, or orange reds. Which all can be cured with lens and settings. But the cannon didn't need another lens or setting adjustments to have a better outcome and easier.

 

[dannylightning]

D7000 is sweet, lots of good features on that camera that would make most people happy for a long time. only reason I did not go with a D7000 is its 16 mega pixels where some of the other models are 24 mega pixels, but 16 is plenty for the average person

you can get a D7000 with the 18-55mm lens for or 650 bucks here. maybe the one you found has a different lens for 800.
Amazon.com : Nikon D7000 DSLR (Body Only) : Slr Digital Cameras : Camera & Photo

 

[poohbear]

Comes with 18-135.
Would you recommend the 7000 over the 5200 or 5300? Even given the low me gaping count? I was under the impression that the mega pixel was as important now a days

 

[dannylightning]

they say the more mega pixels the larger you can print the image and you can crop the image more before the images starts to look bad. some people seem to think this is not true but I am not 100% sure if it is or not. I do know I can crop my images on my D5300 pretty heavily before they start to look bad. on the other cameras I had in the past I could not crop as much before the images starts to loose quality, I would have to guess that is due to the higher MP.

a image that is not cropped allot being viewed on your computer screen you will probably not notice much difference between the two cameras as far as image quality goes. as far as prints you will probably not notice much difference unless you are printing large prints.

if you take the D5300 vs the D7000.

the D7000 has more features like being weathers sealed, it has a focus motor built in so you do not need lens with a auto focus motor built in so you can uses lenses that don't have a focus motor in the lens. it has 2 SD card slots. I think it has high speed sync for using off camera flashes and some other stuff like that. its a much better camera as far as features go but as far as image quality goes it will probably be about the same as the D5300, just less MP

the D5300 has newer technology but less features. I think the D5300 does better with high ISO meaning better in low light. it has more mega pixels which to some people that might not be a big deal at all. it does not have the anti-aliasing filter which means slightly sharper images, they say they were able to remove that due to the newer technology used in that camera. it has a bigger buffer. it has wifi and GPS if you care about that kind of thing, it has a newer better processor and stuff like that.


those are some of the key differences between the two. you are looking at newer technology vs better features between those 2 cameras, its is a pretty tough choice IMO but I deiced to go with the newer technology.

the D7100 is the new version of the D7000, the D7100 has all the new technology plus all of the great features. you probably wont be able to find as good of a deal on the D7100. if I had it to do over again I would get the D7100 for all the features and newest technology. right now the D7100 is the best DX camera Nikon makes. their full frame cameras are better but cost allot more.

I find my D5300 to be a wonderful camera and I can easily live with out the extra features but I think they would be nice to have.

 

[poohbear]

That D7000 really looks like a great deal for 650. Ill try and post some pictures later as to what I am talking about. THey are mostly all just blurry and really not usable.