Ray
Hello everyone
Sorry, not guitar stuff but I got a keenness to get myself a SLR - a DSLR. I've got a SLR but it's still 35 mm from way back when I went to camera club. Then something got in the way. I dont believe I'll be going again - not that interested anymore. So, two things. I am looking at entry level stuff and two that caught my eye - Nikon D5200 and Canon 650D. Any thoughts? Then, if you were looking to acquire a camera, where would you scout around? I have been looking at SACamera which seems pretty well priced.
Much appreciated
Raymond
proze
The D3100 on Kalahari or at Orms for R3700 is a great deal for a good starter dslr.
Sent from my U9200 using Tapatalk 2
AlanRatcliffe
I'm on the periphery and most of what I know I've got from osmosis from my wife who is pretty into it.
I don't think you can go wrong with either brand (they are the Fender and Gibson of the camera world). But buying into one brand does mean you end up sticking with them (unless you are willing to change all your lenses too, so do your research. I'm sure some more knowledgeable types will chip in on the specific models (I know we have a few serious enthusiasts/pros here).
One thing I have heard is that while the Canon cameras are a little more expensive, the lenses for them are cheaper, so they can work out cheaper in the long run.
SA Cameras are good. Orms here in Cape Town too. Cameraz often have secondhand stuff.
My wife has a bunch of Pentax DSLRs and glass lurking around if you're looking for a good deal (she made the switch to Nikon last year). Good cameras, but not quite as good as the other two and far less popular. Of course the popularity means you can pick up some damn fine stuff for a relatively low price on the s/h market. They work fine for me when I need something for my know nothing, point and shoot guitar photography.
Chocklit_Thunda
From my experiences I know hat Nikon have better kit but Canon have got way more accessories available.
I prefer Nikon (have the D200... That thing is built like a rock) but we chose to buy overseas and bring it in because at the time there was about a R10 000 price difference... I think that now it's gone down locally so you shouldn't have to sell your relatives to afford one....
You may wanna try online stores and definitely shop around! Always try to find the best possible deal...
jt
Don't ask me about canon but u can't go wrong with the d5100, d3100, d5200 or d3200. Bear in mind with the higher pixel count of the 3200 and 5200 the quality of the lenses start to count more.
If I remember correctly sa camera are not as cheap as places like makro or hi fi corp. Have a look in the local paper or online. Check bid or buy too.
singemonkey
I use Nikons, but only n00bs reckon they're better than Canon. Both of those manufacturers make unbelievably good products, mediocre products, and poor products. It all depends on what you specifically want - pro - enthusiast - casual - and even then it depends on what you're specialising in. If you hear someone say one entire brand is better than the other, you're not getting good advice. Questions that are real between the two brands are like, "Which compact under $300 is better?" ... or "Who makes a better professional wide-angle zoom?"
Canon is better than Nikon and vice versa is the biggest load of BS. And it has been since Canon upped it's game to Nikon's level in the mid-70s.
DaFiz
If you're professional you might distinguish between Nikon & Canon, but for the family shots of your guitar collection it's "six of one & half a dozen of the other",
The price of the extras being the decider. 8)
Big-G
When i was first hunting for a DSLR, I generally found that for like for like specs, the Nikon worked out more expensive than Canon. Both brands make excellent kit as has already been established, and both will see you right. I opted for Canon purely on an economical choice. The body was cheaper, a decent flash was cheaper, and the lenses were more readily available on the second hand market.
I do not regret getting my Canon, and as was mentioned, I knew getting into it that once I'd decided on a brand, I was committed to that brand. I have upgraded all my lenses and the camera body itself over the years, having started with the 500D, and the E-FS lens, and now shooting a 5D with L series Lenses, I can say I couldn't be happier with the kit! Obviously, just like with guitars, I dream of owning the next best thing, like a 5Dmk3 or 1Ds Mk3, but I also know that what I've got is more than adequate to do the job!
Just one note about the E-FS 18-55mm lens that comes with certain cameras... They are cheap, and it would seem that the quality control is a little more relaxed than other lenses, as two of my friends both had autofocussing issues with their particular 18-55's, where-as I never had an issue at all, and found it to actually be a very sharp lens, so just be aware, and really test out your E-FS lens when you get it to make sure its focussing well. If not then take it back asap and ask for a new lens.
Regards
G!
jt
Singe is right, one brand isn't better than the other, even to a professional. Big g is right when it comes to finding more readily available secondhand lenses and stuff for canon. My choice is nikon only because the rest of my family are nikon users and I can loan their lenses and stuff (I think canon have an adapter to take nikon lenses and nikon doesn't have it for canon, that may very well be a deciding factor). Get a good tripod, I think it takes longer setting up the simple things like aperture and shutter speed on entry level dslr's. Its not as quick as you may be used to on the ol' hassleblads and co.
Manfred-Klose
well just like music , photography is who is behind the camera, and not so much the camera (ok dont throw me with tomatoes, very good cameras and lenses can do amazing stuff, but it will still depend on the photographer)
i recently bought my first camera, CANON SX240 was on special at orms for R2000.
I dont know much about cameras or how to use them, but within a few days i got the hang of the camera, and learned how the manual function works
oh and its small and very portable
here is some photos i have taken with the camera
http://www.flickr.com/photos/94021234@N04/8565681669/#in/photostream/
anyway just wanted to mention it if a reader is looking for a cheap but good camera.
i originally bought the camera to take better pictures of my guitar, and now i find that i am taking pictures of ducks and stuff haha
Ray
OK thanks everyone.
Alan, as far as Pentax goes, I have been told that the stuff is not as popular as some of the others. Also, I think I want to get something now to hold onto for a while. And I read in whatdigitalcamera and shutterbug that the D5200 would be just such an item, as would the 650d. Then there is quite some talk about Sony kit as well. What I do like about Pentax is that a whole bunch of the doors are "waterproofed".
What I like about the Canon stuff is that it has a touchscreen. Not that I know if that is really such a big deal but it appeals to me. Also, I had Canons in days of yore.
As for Nikon, I like the 24 MP spec. Would that make a difference? I dont think so but there it is.
ratrap
I've still got an old Pentax 35mm with a bunch of Pentax KL mount lenses.
I suppose I am being super optimistic wondering if the lenses will work on a Pentax DSLR? ?
Big-G
ratrap wrote:
I've still got an old Pentax 35mm with a bunch of Pentax KL mount lenses.
I suppose I am being super optimistic wondering if the lenses will work on a Pentax DSLR? ?
If you can get hold of an adapter ring to go between the body and lens, then yes it actually will work, although focusing and aperture would both be fully manual.
Regards
G!
singemonkey
Ray, 24mp won't make any practical difference. Huge resolutions are useful for people shooting pics for billboards or making truly enormous prints, but 6mp was already comfortably enough for a full magazine page. I wouldn't worry too much about that. I don't know how touch screens on DSLRs are implemented. But they certainly offer some new and intriguing ways of using the camera on my phone. So maybe it's a good feature.
The thing about Pentax and the waterproofing is that, because of the dominance of Nikon and Canon, they tend to offer more bang for buck for less. But it can be a bit marginal now days. Cameras tend to compete now on the smallest differences in specs. I'd say rather get a newer camera than an older one because the specs keep increasing year to year. An entry level DSLR totally smokes a top-of-the-line pro camera from 6 years ago. But then again, it does all come down to how you use it. Like with the megapixels thing, a lot of the improvements only benefit a tiny subset of specialised photographers. But generally one good thing about newer cameras is that their ability to get great shots in low light is much better than those made a few years back.
I still have two Pentax SLRs (as well as two Pentax medium format SLRs which are some of the finest cameras I've ever laid my hands on - Pentax is no Mickey Mouse brand by any means) and I will one day get a 2nd hand Pentax digital body since the K-mount lenses all work happily on those.
deefstes
Alzo sprach das Monkey! I agree 100% with Singe and I find it refreshing to see advice like that. If anyone tells you outright that one brand is better than the other, ignore that and any other advice he gives you.
One specific model of one brand might be better or worse than a specific model of the other brand but even then it's largely down to preference. And in the case of these two specific models (Nikon D5200 vs. Canon 650D), there really is very little to separate them. I recently got the 650D and I am very happy with it. I am particularly fond of the kit lens that comes with it, and in most cases kit lenses are horrific.
In South Africa, the 650D is sold in two different kits, one that includes the 18-135mm STM lens (the one I got), and the other that includes the 18-55mm lens and 55-250mm lens. I might have considered the latter if I didn't already have a 70-300mm lens. But the 18-135 STM is well cool and the fact that it is STM means that the autofocus can be continuous in video mode, a feature that has always been sorely lacking on the video modes of these DSLR cameras.
Another neat feature of the 650D is the touch screen which makes the UI very intuitive and which will probably become a standard feature of all DSLRs in future.
One aspect where it could be argued that the D5200 is superior to the 650D is the sensor resolution (24MP vs 18MP) but there is an important thing to understand in this regard; Even 18MP pictures have a vastly higher resolution than any typical photographer needs. The megapixel race has been blown out of proportion and the end result is that people burn up memory and hard drive space much quicker than they really need to, in the misguided belief that they're taking better quality pictures.
There is one advantageof a higher megapixel rating though which people using the "billboard print size" argument usually overlook; It allows you more freedom to crop your pictures. In other words, you take a picture of a bird in a distant tree and you can still crop the picture down and not end up with a 300x200 thumbnail. However, in order for such pictures to be of any real value, you need yourself a super awesome crisp lens, not the kind of lenses that come standard with these entry level cameras.
So really, I wouldn't allow the 24MP rating to influence my decision too much. Besides, if you think about it, 24MP isn't even all that much more than 18MP. It effectively translate to pictures that are 15% bigger on either of the axes.
One thing you might want to consider, is go to Kameraz or some camera shop and tell them you want to feel and shoot a few shots with both cameras. You might find that one just feels better in your hands. Some body designs are just more comfortable and more intuitive in some hands.
deefstes
Oh, and one other thing I should have mentioned is this. I don't know how the 650D and D5200 measure up in low light but between their predecessors (the 600D and D5100) the Nikon outperformed the Canon quite handsomely at high ISO settings (I think ISO 3200 and higher). I suspect it might still be the case with these.
teleplayer
I think in terms of stills, you're going to get a very similar outcome from both. If you're wanting to shoot video, Canon is your best bet in that price range. Nikon has been frighteningly behind in this regard until their recent release of the D800 which is remarkably more expensive than both the cameras you're looking at.
So for me (shooting a hang of a lot of video professionally) the Canon is a no-brainer. If you're never going to use this function on your soon to be new toy, then I say look at price and go for that.
P.S Canon have a R900 50mm that will blow your mind, if you go Nikon you're going to pay a pretty penny for a fixed focal lens.
singemonkey
To add to what Teleplayer is saying though, dslrs are fantastic for shooting video for film-makers without the vast sums of money required to buy really top end systems (dedicated digital cine-cameras, like those from Sony, Canon, and Red, start at around $18,000, the last time I checked). BUT, they are not ideal for shooting simple family video type stuff. They shine in planned productions and wielded by people who've invested a considerable amount of time and effort into shooting cine. But for the kid's party, you can be dismayed that half of what you want is out of focus, you can't zoom up on that thing happening miles away, the autofocus is too slow (and you can often hear it on the soundtrack), and various other disadvantages compared to handycam type things. Video on DSLRs is for shooting footage that you want to produce a film of some kind from. Not for casual recording of events.
Unless this is something you want to do, don't worry to much about the competing movie modes of the camera. It's a needless distraction if you're really only buying it for stills.
Ray
All solid advice and I'm grateful for it people - thanks. So I went off this morning and took a look at Incredible (not where I'll buy but I needed something there anyway. And I got to handle the 650D and the Nikon D3200 and D5100. And I'll tell you that I struggle with the Nikon. It seems like so small in my hands it really isnt comfortable.
Now, interesting that you say the Canon is the better for video TeleP. In the latest WhatDigitalCamera they test a bunch oif cameras under 500 pund. And in that test they have a D3200 up against a 600D. And they reckon the d3200 video is tops. But that is for different models of each brand anyway.
Then there is another thing that makes the D5200 quite attractive and that is that it has 39 point autofocus system as compared to 650D's 9.
teleplayer
I agree Singe, I guess in my environment it's a good tool, but if you're without a tripod and some understanding, you're in deep water.
With regards to the Canon vs. Nikon shootout in video, what the didn't tell you in that review, is that you can't set exposure in 'LiveView' on a Nikon. Which means that you have to go into still mode each time the lighting changes slightly (clouds are a bastard). That being said, we can go back to Singe's point again and if you're wanting family snaps or clips, it's no biggie.
I wouldn't let the auto-focus thing worry you, the camera isn't always sure what you're planning on focusing on anyway. 9 points in plenty for any shot you're wanting to achieve.
