The better and best SLR camera

[Rmn2000]

Hey guys,

kinda new to this forum. I noticed there are quite a few knowledgable people in photography here so I thought I would ask you the question that has been on my mind for a while. What 's the best SLR camera for me ?
I know this is a very broad question, and now I'm gonna narrow it down to the best that I can.
First of all, I am a keen photographer with very good ideas when it comes to taking photos, and have been thinking of switching to an SLR camera for a while, the only thing that has stopped me is the budget.
I'm a beginner when it comes to using SLR but a quick learner with some years of experience of taking photos with point and shoot cameras.
I see switching to a DSLR as a long life hobby and may want to seek it professionally in the future.
at the moment with the short budget at hand I thought I may start with a basic entry level DSLR such as cannon D 1100 and play with it until I fully understand the concept of a DSLR camera and then down the track save a bit and switch to something like a Nikon d600?
Do you think it is a good idea?
the second question is if that is a good idea, do you reckon a Nikon d3200 would be much better than the canon 1100, as I have been reading the forums and reviews, except from the fact that d3200 has a better res and a lower noise at higher ISO I do not see much more differences, or maybe because I'm a beginner and donot know whatI'm talking about
Hope the question is narrowed down roughly enough so I would get some ideas from you guys.

thanks a lot in advance

 

[jaomul]

Welcome to the forum

Hard to nail down exactly what camera is better between the 2 you mention but reviews favour the Nikon.

You talk about starting on a Canon 1100d and maybe moving to a Nikon d600. This is not a great plan because dslrs are a system so it's more cost effective to pick a system and build it.

While I won't suggest a specific model I would suggest you look at reviews of different dslr systems and maybe even csc systems.

If for example you like shooting lots of fast moving sports etc a dslr is sensible. If however you shoot lots of portraits and street photography a smaller option may be suitable.

 

[Rmn2000]

Hi Jaomul
thanks a lot for responding,
sorry that I did not explain more, where I should have, I see myself ending up taking professional photos, it could be mainly taking photos of people for their special occasions, say for instance wedding, etc plus photos to be printed on canvas to be hung on the wall, the subjects would start from still objects to moving objects.
so this is the way that I am looking at my photography. thanks for the advice re sticking to one system. I have been reading different reviews so far. The reason I mentioned D600 was mainly because of the fact it is the least expensive full frame DSLR cam, and as I have read if you end up having a full frame you will ultimately have a better image quality.
I have been reading on different factors that are important when it comes to considering an SLR cam.
so far I have come to these conclusions:
1- Resolution could be a good factor to print large images and can affect the equality but not to an extreme level.
2- I do not need a pentaprism viewfinder as to me it just adds to the price and I think I can still take good quality photos using my eyes wisely , plus I see myself taking photos of objects such as the moon which I think has something to do with the lense more than the camera itself? I am not sure and I would be more than happy to get a bit of more information on taht as I have not had the time to do my hoemwork on that
3- I do not think I need a very high end max shutter speed say 1/8000 sec as I will not be capturing photos of objects which are THAT fast moving
4-having a full frame sensor would be a good idea, but I do not know how it will affect the quality as I have seen very good examples of photos using an acp sensor as well, esp with the jump in the price
5- a reasonable ISO would be fine, do not think I need to go to a more than 12,800

having read about different cameras I ended up with the majority saying Nikon D3200 is better than Canon 1100, though after I read more it seams there is not that much of difference, except for more for the better resolution and some other minor factors
but I got a bit confused here as to which brand to go for, NIkon or Canon, I know again it depends, but many had mentioned that Nikon has got better color using the 3D (if I'm right) color system, and there are more lenses for it to be purchased in teh marketr

I ended up thinking about Canon D700, which to me was budget friendly (my budget ) and good shutter speed, resolution the HDR option (can be fun on the cam rather than yourself taking two and combining them I guess) but now comparing it to Canon D60 which is higher in price I only see a few difference, the pentaprism viewfinder of the Canon D60, 1/8000 sec shutter speed at max,
I still think Canon D700 be a good option and to take better pictures in the future I can just develop this if I am correct, considering the things I wanna do,
do you think this is a good choice?
also do you think the option of being weather sealed would be essential or just is good to have?

Thanks a lot again.

I hope I have been successful in narrowing down my options , hope so :/

 

[jaomul]

Firstly the 1/8000 sec shutter speed is not necessarily for fast moving subjects. Many still photographs of people in the bright sun with a very wide aperture Lens such as f1.2 may need this. Certainly 1/4000 sec that lower end cameras have is normally more than sufficient to freeze most everyday subjects . The 1\8000 usually just gives a faster speed in brighter light so filters are not required (there are exceptions of course)

Full-time has advantages but many don't need them. For what you talk about shooting there are many options but before you buy I suggest you read more about the basics.

If you pick a brand I then suggest you buy a cheap "last years model" with kit Lens and a fast 50mm prime non full-time, as you can get about 80% the quality at about 30% of the price.

I saw Nikon d5100 going for about half release price recently as an example

 

[jaomul]

Firstly the 1/8000 sec shutter speed is not necessarily for fast moving subjects. Many still photographs of people in the bright sun with a very wide aperture Lens such as f1.2 may need this. Certainly 1/4000 sec that lower end cameras have is normally more than sufficient to freeze most everyday subjects . The 1\8000 usually just gives a faster speed in brighter light so filters are not required (there are exceptions of course)

Full-time has advantages but many don't need them. For what you talk about shooting there are many options but before you buy I suggest you read more about the basics.

If you pick a brand I then suggest you buy a cheap "last years model" with kit Lens and a fast 50mm prime non full-frame, as you can get about 80% the quality at about 30% of the price.

I saw Nikon d5100 going for about half release price recently as an example

 

[Rmn2000]

hmm, yeah you are right I thought so,
so within the cheaper versions, so it means if I for instance can get Canon 1100, down the track I will be able to do more changing the lenses as apposed to say Canon D700? As I am happy to spend around a grand if it would be a good step stone, ( I can get the Canon D700 with twin lense, around $1000 and the Canon 1100 around $600 but I'm thinking if paying more for a camera say from 1100 to 700 wouldn't do as much, then what would be the point on spending more.
It's a difficult question I know, but thanks for your help anyway