witch camera is better and why?

[penuttmman]

Im buying a camera in june. i am a beginer so my price is verry limited. Im debating on the Nikon D3400 or the Canon Sl2? i did allot of research but they have so many things in Common that i dont know witch one to chose! I know that the cannon has a touch screen but that dosent really interest me more than that but the d3400 dosent have a mic jack so witch one would you think is the best one to buy??

 

[480sparky]

There is no universal 'one is better than the other' answer.

There is, however, a 'one will be better for YOU.'

 

[kalgra]

Go with whichever one feels better in your hand and seems the most intuitive to operate.

 

[benhasajeep]

If your going to do video (reason for mic?). The tilt out screen and mic are clearly better for video. Their other specs between them are very close. So, if you want to use it for video. The Canon is the choice.

 

[goodguy]

I will add to "benhasajeep" recommendation.
If you planning to mostly use the camera for photography the D3400 is better, the sensor in the D3400 is a little better in low light and has better dynamic range.
If you planning to do video then the SLII is better, its got good video follow focus and the swivel touch screen is very good and useable for vloging.
So as a pure picture taking machine the D3400 has the advantage, for pure video work the SLII is definitely better.
For a mix of both then its a toss up, if you heavier into video then again the Canon and if more into photography then the Nikon.

 

[fmw]

The differences don't matter. Buy whichever one lights your fire.

 

[petrochemist]

As @fmw, @kalgra, @480sparky point out there is no simple this one is better. The size of your hands & the way your brain works etc (the cameras ergonomics) will probably make more difference than any of the features in deciding which is better for your use.

Neither of them suit me well, my SLR lenses would need an adapter to be used with the Canon & can't be used with the Nikon without additional optics. I've been distinctly unimpressed with the menu layout of budget Canon cameras, and have had less requests for help with Nikon. Certainly either is a competent camera - you have to try pretty hard to find a DSLR made in the last 5 years that's not capable of great results!

 

[TCampbell]

It's hard to buy a bad camera these days.

And the question of which (of any) camera is better is to modify the question to "which camera is better... at WHAT?" What you plan to do with the camera makes a difference.

Some cameras are optimized toward action photography. Some have features that are especially nice for video. etc. etc.

You mention concern about the mic jack... so I'm thinking perhaps you do plan to shoot video.

The Canon SL2 has "dual-pixel CMOS AF" focusing which is particularly nice for "live view" and video modes (it isn't used when you use the camera for normal photography by looking through the viewfinder).

For years, DSLRs could not do continuous focus DURING video. This was because the dedicated AF sensor that do the very fast phase-detect auto-focus are not on the sensor, they are on the floor of the camera below the reflex mirror. The mirror bounces light down into those sensors so they can focus. The interesting advantage of phase-detect AF is that light passes through a beam splitter (a prism) and re-combines. But the light will re-combine out-of-phase (which the sensor easily detects) if the camera lens wasn't focused. But what's really cool about this is that the camera knows a lot more than just whether it is out of focus... it also knows which direction to go to correct focus (depending on the direction of the phase shift) and finally it also knows how far out of focus it is (it knows how far to adjust and in the right direction). This means the camera takes one sample of the scene, orders the lens to snap to the correct focus distance, and it's ready for the shot that fast. Pretty fast. Pretty cool.

But during video, the mirror has to swing up and light passes straight through to the sensor. This means no phase-detect AF sensors can help. Instead the cameras used something called "contrast detect" auto-focus. Imagine you take a photo of a bar-code (just black stripes on a white background). If it is in focus, you'll get "black" pixels and you'll get "white" pixels. The edges of the bar code will have a black pixel adjacent to a white pixel (very strong contrast change from pixel to pixel). But now imagine it is not focused... you have fuzzy black stripes... you have black pixels, next to dark gray pixels, next to medium gray pixels, next to light gray pixels, and eventually white pixels... this very gradual contrast change (low contrast) is the result of being out of focus. So the cameras focus system "guesses" at several different focus distances to see if it can improve pixel to pixel contrast, detect edges, and work to refine it. It takes a while and you see the camera perform "focus hunt". It has no idea if focus is too close or too far. It also has no idea how much adjustment it needs.

Canon's Dual-Pixel AF system puts microscopic beam-splitters directly in the sensor. This means you get the performance similar to phase-detect AF sensors... but directly in the sensor itself. When you shoot video, it tracks subjects much more accurately and can snap to focus quickly without having to perform "focus hunt".

If you aren't shooting video... (or don't heavily rely on live-view) then it's not such a big deal.

All of the newer Canon models seem to be getting this feature. Older cameras don't have it.