would you rather buy...

L

lamzb

Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2014
Messages
14
Reaction score
6
Hi

Beginner, wanting to start photography but not sure where to start. In your opinion... would you rather buy:

Canon Model: 650D Bundle Includes: 8GB card, 16GB card and bag, 18-55mm lens, 55-250mm IS lense & 50mm f1.8 lens, 18x Megapixel, 1080p video, 2 year warranty

OR

Nikon Model: D3200 Bundle includes 16GB card,reader and bag, 50mm,18-55mm lens and 55-200mm lens, 24.2x Megapixel, Full HD video, 5 year warranty

OR

Canon Model: 600D DC, Includes: 16GB card and backpack, 18-55mm lens & 75-300mm lens, 18 Megapixel, 1080p video, 2 year warranty

If they are all rubbish let me know as well

I am thinking 10 000 budget? But 1st Canon bundle is 11000, Nikon is 9000, 2nd Canon bundle is 8500. Help?
 
Last edited:
I started with Nikon and went to Canon. Don't get embroiled in the whole war though- they're both decent camera brands.

Haven't had hands on with a 650D but had a 600d which I enjoyed. A neighbour has the 3200 and personal I prefer the interface on the Canon. I see both come with a 50mm which is an awesome lens for portraits or just general medium range shots. I did a 365 and shot almost all of them with the f1.8. :) It also depends what photography you want to do- wildlife, fashion etc. Those bundles have a nice range of lenses, but if you want to focus more on one area perhaps look at getting just a body and a decent lens.

Also, most large camera shops have these on display, I suggest you go to one and try them both out to get a feel :)
 
BE careful how you spend your money!

If you going to make a living or use the camera constantly, buy the above bundles? If not, many decent camera's for a third less.

The fact that you haven't started phtography makes me think that you should rather start small to see what your enthusiasim is after a couple of months!
 
Not even a question. Go for the Canon 650D. The lenses in the bundle have been selected to give you a decent range of shooting options and scenarios.Also the touch screen may sound overrated but it makes every action very fast to complete, I have the 650D and could not be happier...If you get this specific bundle you will go a long time before you might need another lens. The 50mm is great for "artsy" shots and the 18-55 is a great general shooting lens. DO NOT let the difference in MP fool you into thinking the Nikon is better. On this level MP is not the deciding factor. O and you will need a decent tripod and you dont want to go sticking your brand new 10k camera in the grips of R299 makro one. Get a Manfrotto and it will be the last tripod you buy.
 
Both are beginner level cameras.
Once you have established that you want to upgrade, you can always do that a later stage.
The kit lenses are ok, but not spectacular.
 
The difference between the 600D and the 650D isn't significant enough to make the decision, but the lens bundle with the 650D is significantly better. The 75-300mm lens in particular is notoriously terribad.
 
Maybe go the second hand route and try to spend more on quality lenses? What do you plan on photographing?
 
Something I find extremely handy is remote shooting via pc (The canon's have it, not sure about the nikon).
 
None of the above, if you can find one, Pentax K-500. Compared to the 650D:

No touch screen or flip-out screen
Slightly lower megapixle count (16.1 vs 17.9)

but....

Better image quality
Better high ISO performance
2 bits better colour depth
Almost 2 stops better dynamic range
In-camera image stabilization (so you don't need image stabilized lenses)
Up to ISO 51,200 vs 12,800
40 % less shutter lag
30 % larger viewfinder
60 % longer battery life
100 % accurate viewfinder vs 95 %
Pentaprism viewfinder vs pentamirror (brighter - very unusual for an entry level camera!)
6 fps burst vs 5 fps
11 AF points vs 9
50 % faster maximum shutter speed

The cherry on top: Much cheaper

http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon-EOS-650D-vs-Pentax-K-500

If it has to be one of the three, I tried the D3200 and 600D before buying and I found Canon's design feels more an extension to the arm compared to the Nikon. The Nikon seems superior on paper, but they're so close it's academic. Nikon is confusing to anyone other than a Nikon shooter, I challenge a non-Nikon user to do something like change the maximum allowed ISO when using auto ISO in under five minutes :D (I started on film and would take Nikon over Canon any day, I also went into my DSLR purchase unswayed in either direction until using both so please don't call me a fanboy)

From what you've said the Nikon comes with a 200 mm non-IS lens and the 600D with a 300 mm non-IS lens, meaning you're going to want to stick to shutter speeds of 1/320 or faster and 1/500 or faster for hand-held shots - not ideal. I have the 250 mm IS lens mentioned in the first bundle and can go all the way down to 1/50 at 250 mm without motion blurring, and 1/13 with very slight blurring.

To pimp that Pentax one last time, the D3200 also takes a solid beating from the K-500 - http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon-D3200-vs-Pentax-K-500
 
Dysan669 said:
O and you will need a decent tripod and you dont want to go sticking your brand new 10k camera in the grips of R299 makro one. Get a Manfrotto and it will be the last tripod you buy.
Click to expand...

Agree and at the same time disagree. I bought a cheap R250 Velbon and it was great unless it was windy. Now that I've upgraded, the old one is great for locations I wouldn't want to use the more expensive one (eg standing knee/waist deep in water) and it also doubles as a stand for a flash or secondary camera. Starting with a cheapy (but not something that folds under its own weight) doesn't mean you have to throw it away when you upgrade :)
 
Nicolasfoto said:
Maybe go the second hand route and try to spend more on quality lenses? What do you plan on photographing?
Click to expand...


Thanks for the tips everyone. I was thinking of getting bundles just to save money later (figured bundles are packaged to include a saving).

I have been thinking about it a lot and it is a lot to commit to, being a beginner and all. I want to start out taking outdoor pics (parks, beaches, hiking, outdoor festivals, gigs...) so going the second hand route would be the best option for a total beginner.

Basically I just don't want to be stuck with something absolutely rubbish for the types of photos I want to take...
 
Do you want it for hobby or a career? Cameras don't make pictures. No amount of equipment and all that.
A good photographer can make most equipment work for them, it's not the camera.

Have you had a DSLR before?

If you are starting out go for a camera that you can invest in glass and upgrade your body as your need increases. Also you need to decide which brand. If you are going to invest in a system (unless you have lots of money) deciding to change is costly.

Where are you located?
Which cameras have you worked with?

Don't get caught up in nikon vs canon vs whatever.

http://www.outdoorphoto.co.za/index.php?route=information/secondhand

There is a D3200 body for a good price. I don't know Canon so maybe the canon people can advice.
 
Mila said:
Cameras don't make pictures. No amount of equipment and all that.
Click to expand...

You know, this is an overused statement that I can't fully agree with. If you want to do shots of the night sky, you need a camera with relatively good ISO performance. If you want to do action shots, you need something with relatively good auto focus. If you want a very shallow depth of field for portrait shots, you need a large aperture lens. There's a reason we don't all have Canon 350Ds with kit lenses or similar ;)
 
Mila said:
Do you want it for hobby or a career? Cameras don't make pictures. No amount of equipment and all that.
A good photographer can make most equipment work for them, it's not the camera.

Have you had a DSLR before?

If you are starting out go for a camera that you can invest in glass and upgrade your body as your need increases. Also you need to decide which brand. If you are going to invest in a system (unless you have lots of money) deciding to change is costly.

Where are you located?
Which cameras have you worked with?

Don't get caught up in nikon vs canon vs whatever.

http://www.outdoorphoto.co.za/index.php?route=information/secondhand

There is a D3200 body for a good price. I don't know Canon so maybe the canon people can advice.
Click to expand...

Well I have to be realistic, it's going to start out as a hobby and if I feel I want to take it further I will move into making a career of it. Or at least just make some money on the side. I've only ever had a point and shoot / compact camera, never a DSLR. But I want to be able to take "artsy" shots and manipulate the pictures in ways that the point and shoot I have cannot (hence all these questions).

I had no idea it could get this expensive and I found it very difficult to trust the sales person retailers as I question whether or not he is actually giving good advice or just trying to make a sale...

I do see there are new cheaper bundles available now.
Example: Nikon D3100, 8GB SD card, shoulder bag, 18-55mm and 55-200mm DX lenses, 14.2x MP, card reader, 1080p full HD video for like R 5500
way less than my original +-R9000 to 10 000 quotes

And being that I am just starting out it is a bit crazy to spend too much when I don't know what the hell I'm doing :whistle:
 
lamzb said:
I have been thinking about it a lot and it is a lot to commit to, being a beginner and all. I want to start out taking outdoor pics (parks, beaches, hiking, outdoor festivals, gigs...) so going the second hand route would be the best option for a total beginner.
Click to expand...

The Canon supporters will lynch me for this, but if you are doing a lot of outdoor work, you are better off with a Nikon camera. In short, with a recent Nikon sensor (D7000, D7100, D5100, D5200, D5300, D3200, D3300, but NOT the D3100) you get roughly 13 stops of dynamic range, versus 11 stops with comparable Canon sensors (600D, 650D).

What this means in practice: Canon shooters are forced to use multiple shot exposure bracketing to capture some scenes that a Nikon can capture in one shot. For example, if you have a scene with very bright parts, as well as regions that are in shadow, then the Nikon gives you a much better chance of capturing detail in both bright and shaded areas in a single shot.

This is splitting hairs, but the Nikon will save you hours of not having to fuss around with multiple-shot HDR post-processing once you get to the point where it matters.

Of course, there are many other factors in the brand choice, some of which matter more (e.g., which interface / handling style you prefer, or which one fits your hand better, which lenses are available at what price, etc.), but trust me on this: recent Nikon sensors are better for landscape / beach work at the moment.
 
Oj0 said:
I'm still voting for the Pentax K-500, it trumps the D3300 on dynamic range :D

http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon-D3300-vs-Pentax-K-500

Heck, it even trades some blows with the (much more expensive) D5300 - http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon-D5300-vs-Pentax-K-500
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Both the K-500 and the K-50 are extremely good value for money (they have impressive specs for the price). I am not thoroughly acquainted with the Pentax lens range, but from what I could tell there are no cheap 35 mm prime lenses available (same problem as Canon, really).

If you plan on buying mostly Sigma lenses, then you could build a really nice kit around the K-50 (the k-500 does not have an indicator for the active AF point, which kills it for me personally). Of course, the Sigma primes are enthusiast-grade equipment, so that starts at about R6k per lens.
 
The camera manufacturers need to strike a balance between sometimes competing requirements that relate to factors such as still image quality, video features and ease of use for newcomers. Pentax tends to skew the balance towards photo quality, making them better than the competition at a similar price. The video then tends to be worse than the competition and the point-and-shoot modes for newcomers are thinner on the ground.

I have both Nikon and Pentax kit (mainly Nikon) and just use the best kit for the situation (usually Pentax since it will inevitably be stills).

On the prime lens side, Pentax has three 35mm lenses available at different price points. Around that focal length there are also a couple of 40mm lenses and a 31mm which has an eye bleeding price.
 
fvdbergh said:
Fair enough. Both the K-500 and the K-50 are extremely good value for money (they have impressive specs for the price). I am not thoroughly acquainted with the Pentax lens range, but from what I could tell there are no cheap 35 mm prime lenses available (same problem as Canon, really).

If you plan on buying mostly Sigma lenses, then you could build a really nice kit around the K-50 (the k-500 does not have an indicator for the active AF point, which kills it for me personally). Of course, the Sigma primes are enthusiast-grade equipment, so that starts at about R6k per lens.
Click to expand...

The K-50 is weather sealed while the K-500 is not , so that is a big plus, while neither Canon or Nikon can offer weather sealed bodies or lenses in the same price bracket.
The cheapest Pentax 35mm is the Pentax SMC DA 35mm F2.4 AL coming in at about R2900 however it isnt rated WR so no weather resistance.

garyc said:
Pentax tends to skew the balance towards photo quality, making them better than the competition at a similar price. The video then tends to be worse than the competition and the point-and-shoot modes for newcomers are thinner on the ground.

On the prime lens side, Pentax has three 35mm lenses available at different price points. Around that focal length there are also a couple of 40mm lenses and a 31mm which has an eye bleeding price.
Click to expand...

I have been through a number of Pentax, K100D, Kx, K5, and now K3 all due to feature rich options that could not be found in the competition in the same price range.
Pentax glass is horrendously expensive, so the big trick is to build a decent collection mixing and matching Pentax, Sigma and Tamron.
That 31mm thankfully is not on my priority list :wtf: for that sort of money i would rather do the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM
 
I've been toying around with this idea of, if I don't go professional, is it really worth all that money to take a photo?

I've got a compact camera, Nikon S3300 but I use my phone camera most of the time. I also understand what settings to use when on my Nikon. R10 000+ for extra features is a bit much. Again, this would prob only benefit people that want to make a career out of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X