What are your thoughts?

[Kanthaka]

60D isn't fullframe. For canon in the fullframe line you've got:

5D - 5DMII - 6D- 5DMIII

There is also the 1D line that is broken into fullframe and 1.3 crop bodies, whilst the rest of the canon range are all 1.6 crop sensors.

Yeah, I did more research and realized how limited my options become if I just opt for full frame Canon cameras so I've decided to include cameras with a 1.6 crop factor. Sorry, I should have included that in my previous post.

 

[astroNikon]

Nikons are 1.5x crop factor. So you're still only Canon if you limit yourself to 1.6x
I'm not sure what Sony is though.

 

[Kanthaka]

Nikons are 1.5x crop factor. So you're still only Canon if you limit yourself to 1.6x
I'm not sure what Sony is though.

Honestly, the only camera I'm seriously considering from Nikon is the D5200. Thing is... I'm more comfortable with a Canon. But if I'm really going to get more from my money by going with Nikon feel free to state your thoughts.

 

[goodguy]

I'm currently looking into the Nikon D5200 but I don't feel as if I've done enough research so I tried going for a broader question to see if I should continue to look further. I actually already tried holding the D5200 & the D5300 at Target & Best Buy but idk... I just didn't like the feel of it. I'll probably get used to it, the more I hold it but I was more comfortable holding the T3i in my hands. So conflicted...

Canon T3i is a nice camera choosing it will not be a huge mistake but the Nikon D5200 is a better camera.
It has a better and more modern sensor, the sensor on the T3i is around 6 years old which means in technology world that its very old, the sensor on the D5200 is less then half its age.
It has the advantage in low light, better dynamic range and has more resolution.
The auto focus system is also much better so I do recommend the D5200 over the Canon T3i.
The D5300 is obviously a great camera and is a small upgrade from the D5200 but I am not sure the money difference is justifying the small upgrade, it depends how much of a jump in value the D5300 is from the D5200 in your store.

The D5200 was going for $700-800 while the D5300 was going for about $1000. They also each come with one kit lens. I looked up the specs online. Out of the three, the D5300 is the best spec-wise; however, I don't think it has enough "extras" above the D5200 for me to dish out more cash. But, like I said previously, it just felt awkward holding it. After many years of using a P&S, I've recently started using a Canon bridge camera. Does that play a major role in this? Or does it mean I just have to get used to the layout and feel of a different make?

Edit: I'll respond to the other two posters when I have access to a computer. Tapatalk is being uncooperative for some reason.

300$ difference between the D5200 and D5300 ?
For me its a no brainer, the D5200 a much better value.

As for commfort, you will get used to whatever camera you will get, choosing the best hardware is what you should concentrate at.

 

[goodguy]

1) Got it. Currently looking at the Nikon D5200 but the Canon Rebel T3i has a better feel in my hand.

2) I intended my question to be broad as I just wanted to get a better idea as to what I should be looking for. Should I be looking for an entry-level DSLR or mid-range to high-end? What did you use when you were just starting out? Did it serve you well? Etc. I've done nowhere near enough research for me to pick a specific camera just yet. But I will mainly be using the camera for portrait photography (individual and group). Also, even though I'll be doing some shots indoors, the majority of the pictures I take are probably going to be outdoors because I plan on getting into landscape/cityscape photography. Budget-wise, I don't have anything specific just yet either because, again, I'm still doing research. However, I don't think I want to spend more than $1000 dollars on the body alone because I will still need to buy lenses, spare battery, and such.

3) Honestly, I don't think I want a crop sensor.

Well this is easy, if you don't want a crop sensor camera then its even easier get the Nikon D610, best value full frame but it will cost more then 1000$
For portrait, landscape and so you will need to get different lenses, be sure to get the right stuff for that so you will get the results you are expecting and get the most of the high resolution sensors Nikon is offering today, many times its the lens that is the bottle neck of the camera (and sometimes its the photographer LOL)

 

[pthrift]

Canon T3i is a nice camera choosing it will not be a huge mistake but the Nikon D5200 is a better camera.
It has a better and more modern sensor, the sensor on the T3i is around 6 years old which means in technology world that its very old, the sensor on the D5200 is less then half its age.
It has the advantage in low light, better dynamic range and has more resolution.
The auto focus system is also much better so I do recommend the D5200 over the Canon T3i.
The D5300 is obviously a great camera and is a small upgrade from the D5200 but I am not sure the money difference is justifying the small upgrade, it depends how much of a jump in value the D5300 is from the D5200 in your store.

The D5200 was going for $700-800 while the D5300 was going for about $1000. They also each come with one kit lens. I looked up the specs online. Out of the three, the D5300 is the best spec-wise; however, I don't think it has enough "extras" above the D5200 for me to dish out more cash. But, like I said previously, it just felt awkward holding it. After many years of using a P&S, I've recently started using a Canon bridge camera. Does that play a major role in this? Or does it mean I just have to get used to the layout and feel of a different make?

Edit: I'll respond to the other two posters when I have access to a computer. Tapatalk is being uncooperative for some reason.

300% difference between the D5200 and D5300 ?
For me its a no brainer, the D5200 a much better value.

As for commfort, you will get used to whatever camera you will get, choosing the best hardware is what you should concentrate at.

This contradicts 99% of what I've ever read or heard. I've always thought that the differences between nikon and canon were moot if you compare apples to apples.

You definitely should however feel comfortable with the camera in your own hands and obviously ergonomics play a big role in that

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4; probably while slacking off at work

 

[Kanthaka]

Well this is easy, if you don't want a crop sensor camera then its even easier get the Nikon D610, best value full frame but it will cost more then 1000$
For portrait, landscape and so you will need to get different lenses, be sure to get the right stuff for that so you will get the results you are expecting and get the most of the high resolution sensors Nikon is offering today, many times its the lens that is the bottle neck of the camera (and sometimes its the photographer LOL)

In a later post, I stated that I was fine with a 1.6 crop factor. Then someone brought out that Nikon only has a 1.5 crop factor but I told them, at this point, the only camera from Nikon that I am seriously considering is the D5200.

 

[goodguy]

The D5200 was going for $700-800 while the D5300 was going for about $1000. They also each come with one kit lens. I looked up the specs online. Out of the three, the D5300 is the best spec-wise; however, I don't think it has enough "extras" above the D5200 for me to dish out more cash. But, like I said previously, it just felt awkward holding it. After many years of using a P&S, I've recently started using a Canon bridge camera. Does that play a major role in this? Or does it mean I just have to get used to the layout and feel of a different make?

Edit: I'll respond to the other two posters when I have access to a computer. Tapatalk is being uncooperative for some reason.

300% difference between the D5200 and D5300 ?
For me its a no brainer, the D5200 a much better value.

As for commfort, you will get used to whatever camera you will get, choosing the best hardware is what you should concentrate at.

This contradicts 99% of what I've ever read or heard. I've always thought that the differences between nikon and canon were moot if you compare apples to apples.

You definitely should however feel comfortable with the camera in your own hands and obviously ergonomics play a big role in that

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4; probably while slacking off at work

As I mentioned the Canon isnt a bad camera, not at all but the Nikon is better.
With few cameras Nikon currently has Canon do lag a bit with their sensor technology compared to Nikon which simply buys its sensors from Sony and Toshiba (as far as I know).
Some other cameras like the 70D Canon has some advantages (in video) compared to Nikon and some weaknesses (Still photography).
Overall both Canon and Nikon make good cameras

 

[Kanthaka]

This contradicts 99% of what I've ever read or heard. I've always thought that the differences between nikon and canon were moot if you compare apples to apples.

You definitely should however feel comfortable with the camera in your own hands and obviously ergonomics play a big role in that

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4; probably while slacking off at work

How big a role? Another poster said that I should just go for the best hardware & that I'll just eventually get used to the feel of a camera. I'm so conflicted right now...

As I mentioned the Canon isnt a bad camera, not at all but the Nikon is better.
With few cameras Nikon currently has Canon do lag a bit with their sensor technology compared to Nikon which simply buys its sensors from Sony and Toshiba (as far as I know).
Some other cameras like the 70D Canon has some advantages (in video) compared to Nikon and some weaknesses (Still photography).
Overall both Canon and Nikon make good cameras

I know that the D5200 has a better sensor & more focus points while the 60D has faster max shutter speed, more weather resistant, & better battery life. The thing is: everyone has been saying lens is more important than the body. So my question now is: If I get high quality lens for the Canon will the older sensor still make the camera not worth the purchase over the D5200?

 

[AmberAtLoveAndInk]

I myself shoot with a 5DM3 and will tell you it is worth every single freakin penny and then some. BUT I started with the 60D almost 2 years ago and still kick myself in the ass for selling it to put towards the Mark III some months back. It is a fantastic starter cam. Good enough to get "the shot", I feel it really grew with me starting from total newb to business owner, it was really easy to get comfortable with and eventually shooting in M was cake. Then I decided I needed to kick it up a notch when I started offering weddings. The ISO on the 60D wasn't cutting it (though I only use high ISO in dire instances) and silent shutter on the 5D Mark III is pretty much a must at an intimate wedding in an echoing Cathedral. I really really wish I would have held on to it as a second body for family vacas or for an assistant use for me. Its a great camera at that budget. Highly reccomend.

 

[AmberAtLoveAndInk]

Also, lenses, like many mentioned, are where you need to spend your money. I went from a kit lens 18-55mm to a 24-105L when I had my 60D and as soon as I started using quality glass my pictures took a 180 in the right direction.

 

[goodguy]

I know that the D5200 has a better sensor & more focus points while the 60D has faster max shutter speed, more weather resistant, & better battery life. The thing is: everyone has been saying lens is more important than the body. So my question now is: If I get high quality lens for the Canon will the older sensor still make the camera not worth the purchase over the D5200?

Well let me ask you this question, if you get a D5200 and put good lens on it will it be better then a 60D with good glass ?

Answer is absolutely yes.

Both Canon and Nikon has different level of glass (lenses), put good glass on good camera and you can get good results.
If one camera will produce high noise level at lets say 1600ISO then no matter what glass you put on it the camera will still produce high noise level.
Good fast glass gives you the ability to shoot at lower ISO because it brings more light to the sensor.

Again let me say this, the Nikon D5200 is better but if you are so drawn to the Canon then by all means go for it, its not a bad camera at all.

BTW good glass is expensive stuff, Nikon 24-70mm 2.8G is around 1600$-1800$ and Canon 24-70mm 2.8 II is over 2000$ and you always have the option on going third party Tamron 24-70mm VC for around 1200$
The 70-200mm 2.8 of both companies are around 2500$ each

Last thing which actually is the most important is that the main thing, the key ingredient to produce good pictures is not so much the camera or lenses, its the photographer, to get very good results you need to sharpen your skills, only when you really know what you are doing will the results show.

 

[goodguy]

Also, lenses, like many mentioned, are where you need to spend your money. I went from a kit lens 18-55mm to a 24-105L when I had my 60D and as soon as I started using quality glass my pictures took a 180 in the right direction.

Well yes and no, depends on many factors, I went with a good friend on a little shooting trip we both have the D7100, he has the kit lens 18-105mm VR and I have my Nikon 24-70mm 2.8G
Through the trip we swapped lenses and after looking carefully at the results it really was nearly impossible to know which shot was taken with the basic kit lens and which was taken with the pro glass.
Lighting conditions were optimal so we both agreed if it was night the results would have been much different due to the faster glass.
If we would start pixel peep then you might see some differences but at normal watching on computer monitor and good lighting its not such a huge difference.

So again what I am trying to say is that good camera and good glass is very important but true magic happened when the photographer knows what he/she is doing.

 

[Kanthaka]

I myself shoot with a 5DM3 and will tell you it is worth every single freakin penny and then some. BUT I started with the 60D almost 2 years ago and still kick myself in the ass for selling it to put towards the Mark III some months back. It is a fantastic starter cam. Good enough to get "the shot", I feel it really grew with me starting from total newb to business owner, it was really easy to get comfortable with and eventually shooting in M was cake. Then I decided I needed to kick it up a notch when I started offering weddings. The ISO on the 60D wasn't cutting it (though I only use high ISO in dire instances) and silent shutter on the 5D Mark III is pretty much a must at an intimate wedding in an echoing Cathedral. I really really wish I would have held on to it as a second body for family vacas or for an assistant use for me. Its a great camera at that budget. Highly reccomend.

By "the shot," are you saying: "It's decent enough to be content with the photo" or "It's good/great enough to be more than pleased"?

Also if you were mainly using the 60D for weddings, I guess taking it into caverns would be a big no-no? I'm gonna be outdoors a lot at any time of day. I like to explore. Granted, not usually in caverns but I like staying out late. So taking pictures of a cityscape at night, being out in the forest at night, etc. Do you still recommend the camera?

Well let me ask you this question, if you get a D5200 and put good lens on it will it be better then a 60D with good glass ?

Answer is absolutely yes.

Both Canon and Nikon has different level of glass (lenses), put good glass on good camera and you can get good results.
If one camera will produce high noise level at lets say 1600ISO then no matter what glass you put on it the camera will still produce high noise level.
Good fast glass gives you the ability to shoot at lower ISO because it brings more light to the sensor.

Again let me say this, the Nikon D5200 is better but if you are so drawn to the Canon then by all means go for it, its not a bad camera at all.

BTW good glass is expensive stuff, Nikon 24-70mm 2.8G is around 1600$-1800$ and Canon 24-70mm 2.8 II is over 2000$ and you always have the option on going third party Tamron 24-70mm VC for around 1200$
The 70-200mm 2.8 of both companies are around 2500$ each

Last thing which actually is the most important is that the main thing, the key ingredient to produce good pictures is not so much the camera or lenses, its the photographer, to get very good results you need to sharpen your skills, only when you really know what you are doing will the results show.

Alright. I'll take a look at the lens that each camera/manufacturer offers and see where to go from there. I'll probably end up making a new thread with details as a last "check". Thanks for the advice!

 

[weepete]

I'd say buy the best lenses you can afford, then buy the best body you can afford with the rest. Good quality, sharp lenses hold their value really well if kept in good condition and consider buying second hand. They are also the second most important factor in taking good photos (the first being knowing how and when to use the kit you have).

Most people who get into photography end up upgrading when the reach the limitations on entry level bodies, so you could save a bit of cash in the long run and have much more versitility by buying a better body. Bodies don't hold their value well though.

It really depends on how much you can afford and what you are expecting to be able to do with your camera. If you are just dipping your toe in the water entry level cameras are great and will probably do you for years and they will get some great results. If however you see yourself wanting to push the boundaries with stuff like low light photography, light painting, HDR, sports, wildlife etc you'll see the benifit of getting the best body you can afford

The camera I started out with was a Pentax K 35mm film camera (my dads old one) when I was a young lad. Digital wise it was a Sony cybershot p+s I got in my mid 20s and then I got use of a second hand Canon 10D as my first DSLR.

So you would recommend me getting second-hand lenses from Amazon and other sites? Because I typically buy everything brand new. Or are there other sites that would have a better stock of lenses with better quality despite it being second-hand?

Also, I hope to really get into photography. Right now I'm really interested in doing landscape/cityscape type of shots but there are a lot of forests where I live currently so having a lens that is good for wildlife photography would be nice but I wouldn't need it initially. What I'm thinking is getting a wide angle lens for the landscape/cityscape shots and then get one 50 or 85 mm lens for portrait photography. I plan on taking pictures of individuals and groups of people at gatherings and such.

Ebay and a amazon are my main stops along with local camera shops. Lenses are a big investment so somewhere that offers buyer protection is good unless you can see the lens first. I think there's a few more options if you live in the USA too. You do have to be a bit careful with price as there are a few vendors who are pricing gear way over the odds or mislabelled their stuff so read the descriptions carefully.