Help me choose a DSLR

[LandCruiser]

SL1 has phase detect AF, I wouldn't get it.

My two cameras are a D300 with a handful of good lenses, including the Sigma 35mm and an old 5D mkI with a bunch of L glass.

I prefer the 5D, despite it being close to 10 years old, FF is just that good.

 

[hikenbike]

I have a Nikon D90 which I love and has come down into the $700-800 range including a nice lens. Might leave you with some budget for another one or two lenses after you've used it for a while.

Like others have said, money is best spent on the lens, not the camera body.

 

[huntsonora]

Nikon D7100 package from Costco with the 18-200 VR lens.

Best value you will find for $1,799 .... IF you go Nikon.

I don't want to get into the Nikon vs Canon debate and I'm not bashing Canon but if you go Nikon (and they make great camera's) then check out the costco deal.

They also carry Canon 6D with 2 lenses for $2,948


ALSO

Canon EOS SL1 with 2 Lens for $899

I have the Nikon D5100 from Costco for under a grand and its a great setup as well. I don't use it as much as I should but it takes fantastic pictures

 

[LandCruiser]

I have the Nikon D5100 from Costco for under a grand and its a great setup as well. I don't use it as much as I should but it takes fantastic pictures

The 3000 and 5000 series lack the MF adjust feature, which means you can't dial in your lenses to be super sharp. That's only available on the D7k and up. Once you've used MF adjust, you'll see how much of a difference it makes in your photos.

Also they don't have the AF drive, so older Nikkor lenses that use the screw-drive AF system are worthless.

 

[Jumpkix]

Being a Nikon shooter myself, I can tell you that they have some fantastic entry level cameras. I've seen wonderful photos taken from the 5100 bundle available at Costco for a great price. There's really no need to spend lots of money on a nice camera body unless you are certain you will use it all the time, or really want to shoot in low light conditions.

I got my D3 a few months ago from someone I knew personally for $1K and absolutely love it. I shoot frequently in low light, and enjoy photography so I wanted a good body to start :guitar3:

Happy hunting!

Oh, and don't listen to the saps that say Nikon>Canon (even though its true, JK!) Nikon and Canon both make excellent products. It's all about what feels right, and knowing the difference in controls between both brands. I was taught on a Nikon, therefore I now own a Nikon.

 

[huntsonora]

The 3000 and 5000 series lack the MF adjust feature, which means you can't dial in your lenses to be super sharp. That's only available on the D7k and up. Once you've used MF adjust, you'll see how much of a difference it makes in your photos.

Also they don't have the AF drive, so older Nikkor lenses that use the screw-drive AF system are worthless.

My lenses have a manual focus option and I use it quite a bit. Is there something different on the camera body I don't know about. I use the manual focus when I taking pictures of wildlife in the brush

 

[zopperman]

overwhelmed

 

[LandCruiser]

My lenses have a manual focus option and I use it quite a bit. Is there something different on the camera body I don't know about. I use the manual focus when I taking pictures of wildlife in the brush

It's not manual focus, it's micro adjustment for AF. Your camera is focusing on a screen using the mirror and then taking photos with the photosensor by flipping up the mirror.

Your lenses and camera bodies can be slightly out of spec and result in front focusing or back focusing since there's no way to guarantee that the distance to the focusing screen over the mirror and the photosensor are *exactly* the same, and over time your camera can get out of spec, and some lenses aren't made within 100% of spec either.

You can set up a rig on your dinner table and see which lenses are doing what.

High end cameras have MF adjustment because no lens-camera combination will be spot on sharp due to front focusing or back focusing, which becomes really obvious when shooting at wide open apertures like f/1.4 to maximize bokeh.

I pretty much micro-adjust every lens I buy to minimize front/back focusing.

 

[huntsonora]

It's not manual focus, it's micro adjustment for AF. Your camera is focusing on a screen using the mirror and then taking photos with the photosensor by flipping up the mirror.

Your lenses and camera bodies can be slightly out of spec and result in front focusing or back focusing since there's no way to guarantee that the distance to the focusing screen over the mirror and the photosensor are *exactly* the same, and over time your camera can get out of spec, and some lenses aren't made within 100% of spec either.

You can set up a rig on your dinner table and see which lenses are doing what.

High end cameras have MF adjustment because no lens-camera combination will be spot on sharp due to front focusing or back focusing, which becomes really obvious when shooting at wide open apertures like f/1.4 to maximize bokeh.

I pretty much micro-adjust every lens I buy to minimize front/back focusing.

I use the M setting on my lens to get pictures of animals in the brush when auto focus wants to focus on the brush in front of what I want to take a picture of. Ive used out out to 200 yards and rotate the front of the lens manually to focus it.

 

[eddiebx]

I use the M setting on my lens to get pictures of animals in the brush when auto focus wants to focus on the brush in front of what I want to take a picture of. Ive used out out to 200 yards and rotate the front of the lens manually to focus it.

He's not talking about manual focus override...he's talking about fine tuning the lense/body combo. Check out this article if you are curious: LensRentals.com - ?This Lens Is Soft? and Other Facts

This is really only an issue on very fast lens where the DOF is super thin.

 

[gaterose]

I use a d5000 and would agree with whoever posted above about the d5100 at costco (or sam's here). I believe it's $800 or $900 with 18-55mm and 55-200mm starter lenses. You can pick up a D5k like mine for around $450-600 with those lenses on craigslist usually.

I've thought about switching to full frame but it would be too expensive and I really like the size of the DX bodies. I can get smaller/sport camera backpacks so I can carry my camera hiking or biking and have quick access, rather than stopping what I'm doing, removing the bag, setting it on the ground, and unzipping a huge panel.

The D5xxx series also have a flip out live-view screen for composing odd angle shots, I use that a lot for taking ground level shots or when I'm too lazy to squat or sit on the ground for other low angle shots.

There are downsides to the smaller sensor but I don't think those downsides outweigh the upsides for every photographer. I have a 20x30" cropped jpeg print taken with my old 10 MP D40X hanging in my kitchen and it's still quite sharp. Oh and the dx fits in my center console along with a second lens, even with all the junk I keep in there.

If you're set on Canon I believe they make a comparable kit for a similar price but I don't know what model that is.

 

[zopperman]

I use a d5000 and would agree with whoever posted above about the d5100 at costco (or sam's here). I believe it's $800 or $900 with 18-55mm and 55-200mm starter lenses. You can pick up a D5k like mine for around $450-600 with those lenses on craigslist usually.

I've thought about switching to full frame but it would be too expensive and I really like the size of the DX bodies. I can get smaller/sport camera backpacks so I can carry my camera hiking or biking and have quick access, rather than stopping what I'm doing, removing the bag, setting it on the ground, and unzipping a huge panel.

The D5xxx series also have a flip out live-view screen for composing odd angle shots, I use that a lot for taking ground level shots or when I'm too lazy to squat or sit on the ground for other low angle shots.

There are downsides to the smaller sensor but I don't think those downsides outweigh the upsides for every photographer. I have a 20x30" cropped jpeg print taken with my old 10 MP D40X hanging in my kitchen and it's still quite sharp. Oh and the dx fits in my center console along with a second lens, even with all the junk I keep in there.

If you're set on Canon I believe they make a comparable kit for a similar price but I don't know what model that is.

Not set on Canon at all.

This was more the type of reply I was looking for - I'll look into that series and buying used etc. I thought the 12.3 MP looked a bit weak when a lot of the similarly priced canons are 18+ MP and have a larger image sensor IIRC??

something like Amazon.com: Canon EOS 60D 18 MP CMOS Digital SLR Camera with 3.0-Inch LCD and 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS UD Standard Zoom Lens: Camera & Photo

is looking pretty good to me?

 

[gaterose]

Not set on Canon at all.

This was more the type of reply I was looking for - I'll look into that series and buying used etc. I thought the 12.3 MP looked a bit weak when a lot of the similarly priced canons are 18+ MP and have a larger image sensor IIRC??

something like Amazon.com: Canon EOS 60D 18 MP CMOS Digital SLR Camera with 3.0-Inch LCD and 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS UD Standard Zoom Lens: Camera & Photo

is looking pretty good to me?

It looks like the D5100 (and D5000 too I believe) actually has a larger sensor than the 60D, but has 16MP vs 18MP (not a big difference really). The D5000 is 12.3 MP, but it's 3 generations behind now (since there is D5200 now), I'm sure if you looked at the model prior to the 60D it'd have less MP too. You could actually pick up a D5100 with similar lens for ~$100 less or the D5200 for ~$100 more, the D5000 should only be around $500 with kit lenses.

The Canon is also weathersealed which is cool. I believe for your buck with the 5100 you'd get 2 lens going from 18-200 instead of 18-135mm single lens with the Canon, but that's not really a big deal.

Here's a comparison - Snapsort. The Nikon also has better performance at high iso according to the comparison, which translates to shooting in a darker setting. I think either one would be a good buy, just choose wisely because your choice will dictate what brand lenses you'll be buying from now on.

edit - also any choices listed here would be good, you're not going to get an exponentially better photo with a more expensive, higher MP camera until you're really good and selling photos. MP really only translates to what size prints you can make, and as I said before I have a crystal clear 20x30" produced from a cropped 10.4MP DSLR jpeg image.

 

[LandCruiser]

Megapixels mean nothing. Anything over 10 will get you stellar photos. ISO performance/noise is more important.

When debating "sensor size" there's only APS-C (compact) and full frame for DSLRs.

Canon and Nikon's sensors are within a hair of each other.

Canon has a crop factor of 1.6x, Nikon 1.5x... which is good to know when choosing lenses--since a 35mm lens on a crop body is actually close to 50mm on a full frame camera.

 

[zopperman]

Megapixels mean nothing. Anything over 10 will get you stellar photos. ISO performance/noise is more important.

When debating "sensor size" there's only APS-C (compact) and full frame for DSLRs.

Canon and Nikon's sensors are within a hair of each other.

Canon has a crop factor of 1.6x, Nikon 1.5x... which is good to know when choosing lenses--since a 35mm lens on a crop body is actually close to 50mm on a full frame camera.

Crop factor, not sensor size, that's what I meant. :nod:

I think full frame is out of the question. So basically eitehr of the canon or nikon ones that [MENTION=50591]gaterose[/MENTION] suggested would be fine?

 

[gaterose]

There are differences in sensor size, even if slight. The Nikon is about 10% larger than the Canon one.

Maybe I'm looking at it wrong, but I would think the 1.6x crop wouldn't necessarily be better than the 1.5x. It just means that a 35mm Canon lens would be ~56mm while the 35mm Nikon would be ~52.5mm. IMO I'd rather have less crop for wider angle shots as you can make up for length by getting a longer lens. On the other hand, I don't think that 0.1x difference, as with the 10% sensor size, is going to make much difference .

I think it's really about whether you want Canon or Nikon which is an unending debate. Like LandCruiser said, I'd look into the high iso noise performance and other more important features than MP or crop factor.

 

[NYRT4R]

The 60D will have better build quality over the Nikon 5100, better burst rate, and is weather sealed. I think most will agree that Canon is still ahead of Nikon in terms of video. The 5100 will likely beat the 60D slightly in high-iso. That said, here are a few high-iso shots with my 7D (the 60D shares the same sensor with the 7D and image quality is identical). The first 2 shots are ISO 2000, the 3rd shot is ISO 4000, the last shot is ISO 6400.

ISO 2000

ISO 2000

ISO 4000

ISO 6400

I ended up with Canon years ago because there was a better sale on their entry level camera than Nikon had on theirs. You really can't go wrong with either brand. I'm very happy with Canon.

 

[zopperman]

The 60D will have better build quality over the Nikon 5100, better burst rate, and is weather sealed. I think most will agree that Canon is still ahead of Nikon in terms of video. The 5100 will likely beat the 60D slightly in high-iso. That said, here are a few high-iso shots with my 7D (the 60D shares the same sensor with the 7D and image quality is identical). The first 2 shots are ISO 2000, the 3rd shot is ISO 4000, the last shot is ISO 6400.

ISO 2000

ISO 2000

ISO 4000

ISO 6400

I ended up with Canon years ago because there was a better sale on their entry level camera than Nikon had on theirs. You really can't go wrong with either brand. I'm very happy with Canon.

Images didn't work. Maybe if i could see the I would understand why the ISO is so high? :twitch:

 

[NYRT4R]

Images didn't work. Maybe if i could see the I would understand why the ISO is so high? :twitch:

Oops.. Images should be visible now.

They were shot in an extremely poor lit studio. It was basically that one light in the corner and 4 small track lights (I think they were like 40w each).

 

[zopperman]

Oops.. Images should be visible now.

They were shot in an extremely poor lit studio. It was basically that one light in the corner and 4 small track lights (I think they were like 40w each).

Understood. there's zero visible grain or noise, those look fantastic.

I'm leaning toward the 60D at this point. - weather sealed is nice thanks for the tip on that