Help me choose a DSLR

[the great him]

i have the 60d and its an outstanding camera! i have taken it on traning missions with my unit(US army recon&sniper) and spend 3 weeks out in the field with it, sand storms, rain, freezing to 90+ temps hours in direct sunlight high humidity ect worked flawless, never gave me an issue -im using the 18-200 IS lens and while its not the best lens in the world it worked for our needs! i have owned several canons and there durability is second to none, while they are not ment to take abuse, i have found that hey hold up to it better than anything else out there. and still yield a better pic than drones are giving us... -but that may just be me

 

[Dawg4Runner]

I'm leaning toward the 60D at this point. -

The 60D with an 18-200 IS lens is pretty versatile and for the price is hard to beat.

Here are a couple of pics from mine.

 

[zopperman]

The 60D with an 18-200 IS lens is pretty versatile and for the price is hard to beat.

Here are a couple of pics from mine.

The pics didn't work.

 

[Hepar]

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??

Megapixels mean nothing. Anything over 10 will get you stellar photos.

2nd that. High MP's are just something that the camera companies push because the base consumer will relate it to quality. My Nikon D700 was a 12.1 mp camera and the somewhat low sounding mp count is one of the big reasons I chose it. It combined with the large sensor meant much less noise at high ISO (the more mp's you cram into a sensor, the more mp's will be effected when you bump up the ISO) as well as giving the camera itself a faster ability to process information, thus being able to shoot much faster.

My current D800 is a 36.3 mp camera and while that sounds great, it's really not. The file sizes are HUGE, it's shoots much slower than my 700 (4.5 fps vs 8 fps) and it processes pictures much slower. I rarely need the resolution the 36 mp's provide and would have been much happier if they kept it down under 20. But I needed video...

Sensor size and quality are much more important.

i have owned several canons and there durability is second to none, while they are not ment to take abuse, i have found that hey hold up to it better than anything else out there.

I'll put my D800 up against your 60D in a durability test any day of the week. Bring it on! :fencing:

 

[zopperman]

2nd that. High MP's are just something that the camera companies push because the base consumer will relate it to quality. My Nikon D700 was a 12.1 mp camera and the somewhat low sounding mp count is one of the big reasons I chose it. It combined with the large sensor meant much less noise at high ISO (the more mp's you cram into a sensor, the more mp's will be effected when you bump up the ISO) as well as giving the camera itself a faster ability to process information, thus being able to shoot much faster.

My current D800 is a 36.3 mp camera and while that sounds great, it's really not. The file sizes are HUGE, it's shoots much slower than my 700 (4.5 fps vs 8 fps) and it processes pictures much slower. I rarely need the resolution the 36 mp's provide and would have been much happier if they kept it down under 20. But I needed video...

Sensor size and quality are much more important.

Thanks. So again it seems like at high ISO the Nikon would have less noise than the Canon, but then again i'm not a professional how often will I be using ISO 4000 or whatever. Still confused. I figure i'd be happy with either one TBH. Better than using my iphone camera...

also lol at the d800.

 

[Hepar]

Thanks. So again it seems like at high ISO the Nikon would have less noise than the Canon

It might. On paper, sure. But how the sensor processes the information comes into play too. My D800 at 36.3mp's actually has better high ISO performance than my old D700. I know that's a bit contradictory to what I just said, but keep in mind that the D700 was originally released back in 2008.

My point was to not get focused on the mp's. That looking at other factors should weigh in much more than just that number.

 

[zopperman]

It might. On paper, sure. But how the sensor processes the information comes into play too. My D800 at 36.3mp's actually has better high ISO performance than my old D700. I know that's a bit contradictory to what I just said, but keep in mind that the D700 was originally released back in 2008.

My point was to not get focused on the mp's. That looking at other factors should weigh in much more than just that number.

Gotcha :yo:

 

[Dawg4Runner]

The pics didn't work.

Fixed

 

[zopperman]

Fixed

Still not showing up :redbrick:

 

[Hepar]

Still not showing up :redbrick:

I see them!

 

[zopperman]

yeah they work now. the depth of field on that first bird looks awesome, [MENTION=69441]Dawg4Runner[/MENTION] do you have the specs on what you shot it at?

 

[gman72]

I know I'll probably get shit from the Canon/Nikon die-hards for mentioning it ... but you might want to take a look at the Sony Alpha line, they're really nice.

I have an older A55 with the Sony 18-250mm lens as my go-to setup. Small/compact, easy to take on trips, and I've taken some wicked shots with it. The new ones with the OLED viewfinder are even cooler. I'd get the A65 and 18-250mm lens and call it a day...then add other lenses later for whatever your needs, but the 18-250 is on my camera probably 99% of the time anymore. You'll really appreciate the extra 50mm zoom and no need to carry around several lenses.

Here's some random shots from my A55 w/18-250mm lens....

Sony Alpha a65 | Sony a65 DSLR Camera Body | SLT-A65V Review | Sony Store

SAL18250 | DT 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 High Zoom Lens Review | Sony Store

 

[T4rman]

i'll add another vote for the D60. I have one and it has been great. I shoot on a t3i and t4i from time to time and the D60 is worth the extra money. It feels more like a real camera, has much better ergonomics, and decent performance gain.

 

[Dawg4Runner]

yeah they work now. the depth of field on that first bird looks awesome, [MENTION=69441]Dawg4Runner[/MENTION] do you have the specs on what you shot it at?

The first one was shot at 200mm, f/6.3, 1/320, 100 ISO.

 

[LandCruiser]

I know I'll probably get shit from the Canon/Nikon die-hards for mentioning it ... but you might want to take a look at the Sony Alpha line, they're really nice.

Canon and Nikon have massive lens catalogs for their FF cameras, the Sony alpha/Minolta mount... not so much. Same goes for speedlights.

The lens library is really the biggest hurdle any manufacturer needs to get over to get recognized.

 

[zopperman]

Canon and Nikon have massive lens catalogs for their FF cameras, the Sony alpha/Minolta mount... not so much. Same goes for speedlights.

The lens library is really the biggest hurdle any manufacturer needs to get over to get recognized.

Yeah. this is why I wanted to go with one of the bigger brands..

 

[gman72]

Canon and Nikon have massive lens catalogs for their FF cameras, the Sony alpha/Minolta mount... not so much. Same goes for speedlights.

The lens library is really the biggest hurdle any manufacturer needs to get over to get recognized.

For the Sony 'e-mount' lenses (i.e. the NEX/super compact family), the lens library argument would be valid, ... but for the a-mount/alpha/Minolta mounts that the A65 uses, there are well over 100 lenses available, including several Zeiss and G lenses, which are fantastic, plus all the Sigma/Tamron lenses, plus all the used Konica/Minolta lenses you can pick up that work on the Sony as they acquired them back in 2006'ish(?).

How many pro photographers have even over 20 different lenses? Pick a lens type you want/need, I'll bet Sony has it, plus there's a ton of Sigma/Tamron ones too. I've got 6 different lenses from macro to super zoom, and still 99% of the time most of them stay home while the 18-250mm goes on every trip.

I just think that anybody that doesn't give the Sony/DSLT option a fair shake is missing out, and most people that comment on them have never even used one. Roll down to Best Buy or camera shop and play with the Sony A58 or A65 a bit, you might find yourself pleasantly surprised. Live LCD display? 25600 ISO? Full panorama in camera? 10fps shooting? 24mp? Oh, and don't forget.... phase detection video (that's right, it will autofocus while recording video, very cool). And, you don't need to worry about buying lenses with image stabilization, 'cuz it's built into the Sony body vs. the others.

I'd suggest that those features alone are more important to the enthusiast than having 200 vs. 120 lens options available to them. Once you find your go-to lens like I did the rest will sit around collecting dust anyway.

This site is good for doing comparison shopping:
Canon 60D vs Sony SLT A65 - Our Analysis

 

[Hepar]

[MENTION=4235]gman72[/MENTION]. I will agree with you that Sony has come a LONG way with their cameras. Their RX100 for example is an amazing small camera. I'm not super familiar with their DX DSLR's, but I will say that their FX body is where they still have a gap. Good, but the Nikon and Canon equivalents are still superior.

 

[LandCruiser]

For the Sony 'e-mount' lenses (i.e. the NEX/super compact family), the lens library argument would be valid, ... but for the a-mount/alpha/Minolta mounts that the A65 uses, there are well over 100 lenses available, including several Zeiss and G lenses, which are fantastic, plus all the Sigma/Tamron lenses, plus all the used Konica/Minolta lenses you can pick up that work on the Sony as they acquired them back in 2006'ish(?).

How many pro photographers have even over 20 different lenses? Pick a lens type you want/need, I'll bet Sony has it, plus there's a ton of Sigma/Tamron ones too. I've got 6 different lenses from macro to super zoom, and still 99% of the time most of them stay home while the 18-250mm goes on every trip.

I just think that anybody that doesn't give the Sony/DSLT option a fair shake is missing out, and most people that comment on them have never even used one. Roll down to Best Buy or camera shop and play with the Sony A58 or A65 a bit, you might find yourself pleasantly surprised. Live LCD display? 25600 ISO? Full panorama in camera? 10fps shooting? 24mp? Oh, and don't forget.... phase detection video (that's right, it will autofocus while recording video, very cool). And, you don't need to worry about buying lenses with image stabilization, 'cuz it's built into the Sony body vs. the others.

I'd suggest that those features alone are more important to the enthusiast than having 200 vs. 120 lens options available to them. Once you find your go-to lens like I did the rest will sit around collecting dust anyway.

This site is good for doing comparison shopping:
Canon 60D vs Sony SLT A65 - Our Analysis

My next camera is probably going to be a D800. Sony doesn't have any full frame offerings I want.

 

[gman72]

[MENTION=4235]gman72[/MENTION]. I will agree with you that Sony has come a LONG way with their cameras. Their RX100 for example is an amazing small camera. I'm not super familiar with their DX DSLR's, but I will say that their FX body is where they still have a gap. Good, but the Nikon and Canon equivalents are still superior.

Yeah I think the OP has it narrowed down to APS-C sized sensor, which is best bang for the buck on entry level DSLR, and really no need to lug around a crazy heavy full frame, whether it be Canon/Nikon/Sony. All have their full frame big brothers but they are all very expensive, heavy, and not practical for the consumer enthusiast vs. pro photographer.

You're right, the Sonys have definitely come a long way, but as far as Canon/Nikon being superior I'd ask how? It's not like Sony is new to photography/video (check all production studio movie video cameras.... see many Canons/Nikons?) Konica/Minolta was king for quite a while, no? Now Sony owns 'em. So Canon/Nikon have 200+ lenses? Big deal. I'd counter with the ton of features Sony has where Canon/Nikon are lagging. In fact rumor has it that Canon & Nikon are working on their own translucent mirror technology to compete with Sony because the feature set is just too cool to ignore.

Again, to each his own, hell I've seen people take photos with their iphones that you'd even think was done on a pro dslr. Find the camera you like, the features you like, and roll with it. I just really enjoy my Sony and have had a blast taking photos around the world with it. Not once has my buddy (who at least thinks he's a pro photographer) done one thing with his Canon that I can't do with my rig... but many times I've done things where he was like 'wow, that's pretty cool' ... e.g. live viewfinder, ridiculous ISO settings, panorama, etc.

Like I said, roll down to a camera shop and check 'em out. You just might be pleasantly surprised... and realize where Canon/Nikon need to catch up a bit when it comes to features us consumers want/need nowadays.