Kit for Starting Out

[srothman]

Hi Douglas,

As of this very minute* I've narrowed it down to either a Canon 650D, a Nikon D3200, or a Nikon D5100. They are pretty comparable in price, going by the body-only price I've seen.

*This will probably change with the next review I read

 

[bwana]

Hi Douglas,

As of this very minute* I've narrowed it down to either a Canon 650D, a Nikon D3200, or a Nikon D5100. They are pretty comparable in price, going by the body-only price I've seen.

*This will probably change with the next review I read

As previously suggested you might want to take the missus to test drive the cameras and figure out what feels more comfortable in her hand.

 

[srothman]

As previously suggested you might want to take the missus to test drive the cameras and figure out what feels more comfortable in her hand.

...it stopped being about her long time ago But 100%. Planning a trip to Outdoor Photo tomorrow.

 

[fvdbergh]

...and what about the Nikon D3200?

LOL! Sorry, I know I am all over the place, but I've spent the most of the day trying to figure out how deep this rabbit hole goes, and man, it's deep!

Stuff this! I am getting a camera for myself now... the wife can borrow it from time to time

Then we really should not be encouraging you

Since you brought up the D3200, I'll give you my view of the APS-C DSLR ranges. Here is a diagram to illustrate the relative ranking of the Canon/Nikon bodies (i.e., horizontal rows indicate rough equivalence):
[table="width: 500, class: outer_border, align: left"]
[tr][td]Canon [/td]
[td]Nikon[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]1100D [/td]
[td](none, or maybe D3000)[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td](none) [/td]
[td] D3200 (maybe D3100)[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]xxxD (600D etc.) [/td]
[td]D5100[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]xxD (60D, etc) [/td]
[td] D5200, D7000[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]7D[/td]
[td](maybe D7100 or D300, but not really a good match)[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]

.​

​

Before I get flamed (or banned), keep in mind this is my own ranking, based roughly on functionality rather than image quality. It is no secret that Canon does not currently compete with Nikon on image quality at low ISO on APS-C DSLRs (they perform reasonably similarly at high ISO). Having said that, the difference in image quality is mostly of academic interest, and you can capture great, detailed images with either brand.

My ranking effectively goes from entry level (excellent for static scenes, e.g., landscapes, still life, etc.) to professional (geared for high burst rate while tracking fast-moving targets). Build quality naturally increases over the same range.

To illustrate: let us say you want to photograph your small kids running around at a birthday party. What are the features that will make your task simpler? Here are a few:

• Number of (and type of) autofocus points, or how much of the frame is covered by AF points
• An autofocus system that is good at tracking moving targets (which usually implies having many autofocus sensors)
• Burst rate (frames per second) and buffer size (how many shots before frame capture rate slows down)
• Hardware buttons. Can you change the autofocus mode quickly? Hardware ISO button? Depth-of-field preview button?
• Image quality. Not the most significant consideration here, but you probably want at least a clean ISO 1600 or higher, especially with kit zoom lenses

Of course you can use a Canon 1100D to capture this type of photo (kids running around), but your success rate will be low, even if you practice a lot. With a 7D or a D7x00/D300, you should be able to get a decent success rate with a bit of practice.

If you are starting out, though, it is hard to tell just how much camera you need. If you end up being a photography enthusiast, you will certainly yearn for one of the enthusiast/pro bodies if you started out with an entry level model. But if you turn out to be more into landscapes, portraits or still life photos, then the entry level body will be just fine, and you should rather spend your money elsewhere (lenses, speedlights, tripod, etc.).

 

[bwana]

Before I get flamed (or banned), keep in mind this is my own ranking, based roughly on functionality rather than image quality. It is no secret that Canon does not currently compete with Nikon on image quality at low ISO on APS-C DSLRs (they perform reasonably similarly at high ISO). Having said that, the difference in image quality is mostly of academic interest, and you can capture great, detailed images with either brand.

It boggles my mind that anyone could ever suggest something like that would ever happen here.

 

[fvdbergh]

Hi guys.

I am also on the hunt for something starter.
Opinions on 650D v Nikon 5100 what is the after sales service of the manufacturers like in SA.


And I am very intrigued by the mirror less cameras. Main concern here is lens options, but as I am starting I am sure there will. Be more available by the time I really want it.

Currently, the good mirrorless cameras have a significant price premium (e.g., Olympus OM-D). You can get much, much more camera for the same money in DSLR right now. Mirrorless can end up being smaller and more portable, but that depends on your lenses.

 

[fvdbergh]

It boggles my mind that anyone could ever suggest something like that would ever happen here.

No, that was firmly tongue-in-cheek. Merely trying to defuse the inevitable Canon vs. Nikon debate, whilst still stirring as much as I dare ...

 

[DTBA]

No, that was firmly tongue-in-cheek. Merely trying to defuse the inevitable Canon vs. Nikon debate, whilst still stirring as much as I dare ...

Canon and nikon is so damn close how can one debate it :/

 

[srothman]

Then we really should not be encouraging you

Since you brought up the D3200, I'll give you my view ...

<snip>

...

Thanks f.
I was actually thinking of the same thing regarding the cheaper/entry-level body and then rather investing the (marginal) saving in better lenses, etc.

From an accessory point of view, I've noticed more than enough to keep me busy for several lifetimes for both the brands, so that doesn't help in narrowing anything down...

*looks for a coin to flip*

 

[fvdbergh]

Thanks f.
I was actually thinking of the same thing regarding the cheaper/entry-level body and then rather investing the (marginal) saving in better lenses, etc.

From an accessory point of view, I've noticed more than enough to keep me busy for several lifetimes for both the brands, so that doesn't help in narrowing anything down...

*looks for a coin to flip*

While you are planning your extensive future lens purchases .... do not forget about the 3rd party lenses. Sigma, Tokina, Tamron and Samyang all make excellent lenses for both Nikon and Canon. In quite a few cases, the 3rd party lenses are better than the native lens. Lenses like the Sigma 17-50 mm f/2.8, the new Sigma 35 mm f/1.4 (super expensive, though), Sigma 50-150 mm f/2.8, or the Sigma 180 mm f/2.8 macro ($1700!!!), Sigma 8-16 mm, are more-or-less unmatched in their respective categories. Some (e.g. 17-50mm) are much cheaper than the Nikon/Canon equivalent.

My point is simply that for APS-C, you could go either Canon or Nikon and still buy the best (or best value) lenses from 3rd parties for many of the popular lens categories in future.

 

[Paul_S]

... do not forget about the 3rd party lenses. Sigma, Tokina, Tamron and Samyang all make excellent lenses for both Nikon and Canon.

Oooo ... now you're stirring!

It is true that some of the 3rd party lenses are better than the Canon/Nikon equivalents but some people have been burnt badly when they upgrade their camera bodies and find that some of their expensive glass is no longer electronically compatible.
Canon/Nikon will tell you that the 3rd party lenses are not supported so you're left at the mercy of the lens manufacturer's to upgrade their lens firmware and let's be honest, it's not in their interest to upgrade the firmware on their older lenses when they can tell you to purchase the new version.

That is what puts me off the most about using 3rd party lenses but maybe Sigma, etc. have upped their support in recent years and this is no longer a concern?

 

[bwana]

Best lens purchase I ever made was the R9k I spent on my Sigma 24-70 f/2.8. Comparable, at the time at least, in every way to the Canon 24-70, except in price. Surprisingly all my lens purchases since then were Canon though.

 

[pixel_ninja]

I am a novice when it comes to photography. I decided upon the 650D, and a friend got a Nikon 3200 ( http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon-EOS-650D-vs-Nikon-D3200 )

I must say, that the user interface of the canon is way better than that of the 3200's (obviously: IMO) The Nikon looks a mess by comparison.

/noob signing off

 

[srothman]

I actually had a look at that particular review last night too, hence the interest in the 3200. By comparison (and in my utter ignorance) the 3200 looks good, albeit falling short on some aspects, most of which I don't care much for (specifically the touch screen).

Biggest "concern" I had when comparing the two was the 4fps vs. the 5fps of the 650D, but for starting out I don't see this being a huge issue.*

*Disclaimer: I know NOTHING.

 

[bwana]

I actually had a look at that particular review last night too, hence the interest in the 3200. By comparison (and in my utter ignorance) the 3200 looks good, albeit falling short on some aspects, most of which I don't care much for (specifically the touch screen).

Biggest "concern" I had when comparing the two was the 4fps vs. the 5fps of the 650D, but for starting out I don't see this being a huge issue.*

*Disclaimer: I know NOTHING.

Some of those snapsort results are based on things that are so subjective it's just not funny - I never put any faith in "reviews" like those.

 

[fvdbergh]

Oooo ... now you're stirring!

That is what puts me off the most about using 3rd party lenses but maybe Sigma, etc. have upped their support in recent years and this is no longer a concern?

Well, a friend of mine is using Sigma on a Sony body, and he has had to re-chip a lens once, but it wasn't a big deal. But I agree, no guarantee of continued support on older Sigma lenses.

The brand new Sigma lenses (the ones with the "Art" etc. labels) have support for the Sigma USB dock (around $100, I think?). This allows you to update the firmware at home, which is great. The fact that they released this USB dock seems to indicate that they take compatibility with future cameras very seriously.

In addition, you can fine-tune the lens autofocus behaviour with this USB dock, which is something that neither Nikon or Canon currently allows you to do. In fact, you can even apply different autofocus micro-adjust values at different focal lengths and focus distances --- this does not require support from the camera body.

Sigma lenses come with a default 3 year guarantee, which can be extended to 5 years. Definitely better than Nikon or Canon in that respect, but I have not dealt with support services of either Nikon or Sigma, so I cannot really say how well the local agents rate.

(By now, Sigma ought to pay me for all this advocacy. But seriously, the new Sigma lenses should not be dismissed without trying them first ...)

 

[srothman]

I have no doubt

 

[douglasl]

I am looking at the Cannon 650D, 700D Nikon D5100, D5200.
Side by side comparison the D5200 has 24MP 36 point autofocus points, newer processor as the main differences that I see and I am leaning in that direction. One thing it does not have is Eye-Fi, is this really a consideration? Have Ipad and laptop that I will be messing around with.
Other option is 5100 with additional 55-300 kit lens.

http://www.dpreview.com/products/co...0&products=nikon_d5200&products=canon_eos700d

 

[fvdbergh]

Some of those snapsort results are based on things that are so subjective it's just not funny - I never put any faith in "reviews" like those.

I particularly like the "More than 30% better image quality" claim on that particular snapsort comparison. There as just so many things wrong with a statement like that, I do not even know where to begin ....

 

[bwana]

I am looking at the Cannon 650D, 700D Nikon D5100, D5200.
Side by side comparison the D5200 has 24MP 36 point autofocus points, newer processor as the main differences that I see and I am leaning in that direction. One thing it does not have is Eye-Fi, is this really a consideration? Have Ipad and laptop that I will be messing around with.
Other option is 5100 with additional 55-300 kit lens.

http://www.dpreview.com/products/co...0&products=nikon_d5200&products=canon_eos700d

EYE-Fi cards are a great deal of fun but as long as the camera has an SD slot you should be able to use it no problem. The only advantage in that respect the Canon has is a built in menu.