Buying a DSLR - Canon/Nikon advice please

xdcx

xdcx

xdcx

Soldato
Joined
24 Apr 2013
Posts
3,067
Hi,

I have been doing a lot of research for weeks now (as has my girlfriend). We are looking to buy a DSLR mainly for her, it will primarily be used to take pictures of our whippets out on walks. So think 30+mph running pooches with glorious backdrops as we ll as being used for landscape shots and for her to generally use to learn and improve her photography skills (a nice hobby would be good for her, hence I am pushing this a bit).

She has spotted a few second hand Canon 50D's and all she has been looking at are Canon's. This being because she spoke to a few people from work who fancy themselves as photographers and they all said "Canon only, it has to be a Canon". But I have decided this is nonsense and have come to the conclusion that price versus features, the Nikon D5200 is an absolute cracker. I am comparing this to the 700D or 60/70D and do not understand why so many people wouldn't even consider Nikon but opt for Canon regardless.

I am coming from a completely brand neutral point of view looking at specifications and cost over anything else, so this is a general question I am hinting at re: why should I buy a D700 and not a Nikon D5200? :confused:

Please also feel free to nominate other cameras for consideration to my above scenario versus a D5200, as at this moment really I am looking to be advised why not to buy the D5200. Can be had second hand with the kit lens to get her started for £410 in mint condition.

The factor I cannot consider is lens/accessory buying, general use and all of the other little things that come through actual ownership. These are the things I for now assume to be the reason people love Canon?

Many thanks for any advice and input you can provide, it is much appreciated :cool:
 
Last edited:
It doesn't have to be Canon, anyone who says that has no idea what they're talking about. Try out some bodies from all manufacturers, not just Canon or Nikon and see which ergonomics and layouts you like, read up reviews and make an informed decision based on the prices, lenses and accessories available. If you can get on with an electronic viewfinder there are lots of other options. Don't assume that a DSLR is the best solution either, there are some cracking bridge and compact cameras available that may be more portable and appropriate for your uses.

There is perceived wisdom that Nikon have very slightly better sensors than Canon, and in lab tests that holds up in some cases. In real life there isn't anything substantial in it- Technique is far more of a factor.
 
CGrieves said:
It doesn't have to be Canon, anyone who says that has no idea what they're talking about. Try out some bodies from all manufacturers, not just Canon or Nikon and see which ergonomics and layouts you like, read up reviews and make an informed decision based on the prices, lenses and accessories available. If you can get on with an electronic viewfinder there are lots of other options. Don't assume that a DSLR is the best solution either, there are some cracking bridge and compact cameras available that may be more portable and appropriate for your uses.

There is perceived wisdom that Nikon have very slightly better sensors than Canon, and in lab tests that holds up in some cases. In real life there isn't anything substantial in it- Technique is far more of a factor.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply :cool:

I agree with everything you say. I got her to confirm with colleagues why they say Canon and the reply she got was "Canon's just feel better than Nikon and they have better lenses"... So I have told her to disregard whatever this guy from work tells her as that's not helpful in the slightest. Sounds like he has no reason to dismiss Nikon completely like this and taint others with poor advice.

We already have a good Fuji bridge but it's simply not up to the task of taking pictures of the dogs at all. We have tried and tried different things and just cannot get the shots we want, we feel it's limiting us greatly so looking to "step up" to DSLR because of this and to learn a bit more and something new.

Going by your advice on price/spec/lens/accessories comparison. The D5200 is a no brainer. But we do plan of course to get hands on with each fo the camera's we have been looking at from all brands and see if the D5200 still comes out our favourite to take the plunge on.
 
I know what you're saying, but there's no real guarantee that a DSLR will do a better job than a bridge, compact, micro 4/3 etc.

Really all "DSLR" means is that you have a reasonable sized sensor, and you view your composition through the lens. Makes good sense and is a great advantage. However it also comes with a biiiiig compromise- a bigger sensor means a bigger lens, that's intuitive- you have to project enough light to cover it. But there also has to be space between the lens and sensor for a mirror, and this again means the lenses end up being much larger, with lots of special glass, bordering on enormous for large apertures. That's why a £350 Panasonic FZ200 can have a 25-600mm at f2.8 all the way through the focal range and fit in a handbag. To cover the same range a DSLR kit would need an 18-50 f2.8 lens, a 70-200mm f2.8 lens, would weigh about 3-4Kg, would involve lens swaps, and would cost over £2500 :) And you still wouldn't have the 200-600mm- assuming someone makes an f2.8 DSLR lens in that range, it'd cost you over £10,000 and would be the size of a small child :D

So most people would agree that the DSLR combo will be theoretically capable or taking better shots if you apply decent technique, but will it be a better, more accessible and portable solution than the FZ200 when you're out with the dogs?

Don't let me put you off a DSLR, I'm just saying that DSLR doesn't instantly mean "amazing photographs" :cool: Put it like this, I have all that DSLR kit, love using it, but sometimes wish I had a decent bridge :)

P.S. There's nothing wrong with Canon either- they are superb cameras. I'm a Canon user and would switch to Nikon if there was a good enough reason to. At the moment, for me there isn't.
 
Last edited:
I'm a Canon shooter and i confess i look at Nikon's and the quality of their sensors with envy. If i were to start again i would seriously consider Nikon as i like how their bodies / sensors have progressed more so than Canon and their efforts.

Buying into the two main brands gives you access to plenty of options in terms of lens and accessories. And the 2nd hand market for both is huge so there are lots of bargains to be had. That said the quality of their rivals is remarkable and mirrorless systems are equally impressive.

Good luck!
 
To my understanding, most bridge cameras have similar sized sensors to compact cameras. So while yes, you can get very large zoom ranges and wider apertures, the image quality and subject isolation (background blur) just won't be there.

I went from a Canon 550d to a Sony NEX 6 to a Nikon D5200. The latter is without a doubt the best of the bunch in terms of image quality (esp in low light)

If you want a reason to get the 700d over the d5200, then i'll say because the Nikon's live (LCD) view autofocus is slow as hell! But note the autofocus is dependent on lens as well.
 
Don't dismiss a pre-owned body or lenses to keep you within budget, providing you buy from a reputable source. That way you can often get a better body or lens, that you'd not normally be able to afford from new. (if the bug really bites & you want to progress, it usually means `upgrading` down the line, so buying pre-owned quality stuff first, can actually be cheaper)

WEX have a good selection & you can get a D7000 for less than £400 atm http://www.wexphotographic.com/used-nikon-dslr-cameras/b3242?sortby=1&pagenum=6
 
Thanks everyone for the replies :)

That wex link is great, thank you very much for that. We are primarily looking second hand to be honest with you anyway, but never knew about that - It's a damn sight nicer than eBay risks! Looks good so will definitely be scanning that over the next few weeks.

Inazuma it is also good to hear positive feedback, and some negative, about the D5200. Hoping to get a play with one at the weekend :)
 
If you are certain a DSLR is what you are looking for.
D700 is about the best camera you can buy from a photography/usability point of view for that kind of money. If you are serious about photography, then that would be what I would go for.

Sure you can get some cheaper crop DSLR's, but they just are not as nice/fun to shoot imo. They also won't quite give you that full frame look that's very sought after.

If you think mirrorless may be for you.
I would look at the X-E2. Small sexy camera you can take anywhere without getting too much negative attention. Fast centre point AF, but outer points not so fast. It's a crop sensor unfortunately, but delivers amazing IQ compared to crop sensor DSLR's, and even competes with current full frame.
Also fuji has a good selection of FAST prime lenses to give you plenty of bokeh, personally I'm looking forward to the 56mm F1.2 as that will be very close to FF with F1.4.

Not sure if I would use it for wedding work though, would have to see how the outer points perform first.
 
There's a good offer on the Canon 600D at the moment on the 'rainforest'.

You can get the 600D body, 18-55 lens along with a free 40mm f/2.8 STM lens (priced at £144) & £30 cashback. Looks a really great starter setup for £419 (£389 after cashback).
 
CGrieves said:
I know what you're saying, but there's no real guarantee that a DSLR will do a better job than a bridge, compact, micro 4/3 etc.

Really all "DSLR" means is that you have a reasonable sized sensor, and you view your composition through the lens. Makes good sense and is a great advantage. However it also comes with a biiiiig compromise- a bigger sensor means a bigger lens, that's intuitive- you have to project enough light to cover it. But there also has to be space between the lens and sensor for a mirror, and this again means the lenses end up being much larger, with lots of special glass, bordering on enormous for large apertures. That's why a £350 Panasonic FZ200 can have a 25-600mm at f2.8 all the way through the focal range and fit in a handbag. To cover the same range a DSLR kit would need an 18-50 f2.8 lens, a 70-200mm f2.8 lens, would weigh about 3-4Kg, would involve lens swaps, and would cost over £2500 :) And you still wouldn't have the 200-600mm- assuming someone makes an f2.8 DSLR lens in that range, it'd cost you over £10,000 and would be the size of a small child :D

So most people would agree that the DSLR combo will be theoretically capable or taking better shots if you apply decent technique, but will it be a better, more accessible and portable solution than the FZ200 when you're out with the dogs?

Don't let me put you off a DSLR, I'm just saying that DSLR doesn't instantly mean "amazing photographs" :cool: Put it like this, I have all that DSLR kit, love using it, but sometimes wish I had a decent bridge :)

P.S. There's nothing wrong with Canon either- they are superb cameras. I'm a Canon user and would switch to Nikon if there was a good enough reason to. At the moment, for me there isn't.
Click to expand...



Just thought I would point out that the presence of a mirror doesn't change the lens design for most focal lengths at all.

A 100mm f/2.0 lens, in its simplest form (without focusing or correction) is a glass lens 50mm in diameter that is held 100mm away from the sensor film by a plastic or metal tube. Since the lens mount is typically 45mm from the sensor (flange distance) the lens barrel could be made 55mm long.

If you remove the mirror then the flange distance could be reduced to about 20mm. For the 100mm lens design to still work appropriately then the lens barrel would have to extend by that missing 25mm (45mm to 20mm flange reduction), so now the lens is 75mm long to compensate.

Everything else that is in a lens does things like focusing, stabilisation, and correcting aberrations. These will still be there with a short flange distance.

Moreover, a short flange distance causes issues of its own. Sensors work best when the light hitting the sensor is perpendicular. The more accurate the angle the greater the specular reflectivity, and absorption of photons by non-conductive silicon (photons are basically not recorded). Worse still it can create complex refractive issues due to the different wavelengths of coloured light behaving differently. Leans for short flange distances require increased elements to control for this.

So for the most part lenses for a mirror-less system will be longer and at least as complex, if not more so.

However, there are situations where a shorter flange distance has benefits, and that is for lenses with a focal length shorter than the flange distance of mirrored DSLR but longer than the flange distance of the mirrorless system. Lens wider the flange distance have to have a complex retro focus design. This really only helps 35mm prime lenses which have to be retrofocus design on DSLRs but could be similar to a 50mm normal prime with a shorter flange distance. But the short flange distance might add its own complexities.

In summary, the best you can hope for with a mirror-less system is lenses more or less the same size and complexity as regular DSLR lenses, but they might have to be bigger and more complex.



Mirrorless cameras with smaller sensors have smaller lenses due to the smaller image circle required to be covered.
 
I have a sony a77, and its fine, pentax are good too
I prefer the evf on my sony to my friends canon 550d, that's small, looks all in focus can't tell af point easily
try and handle em and pick what you like and get on with, and lenses take the picture remmber ;-)
think all pentax have really good weather sealing, handy for dogs :-)
 
I went with canon eventually but wanteda nikon as it had a better sensor

Why I went with canon
My partner has a canon
The grip fits my hands better, I don't have big hands but I do have long fingers, so I need a grip with a large area otherwise my finger tips bump the part between lens and shoulder and my hand doesn't make contact with the grip all the way round.. This was very odd
Canon have the 65mm 5x macro lens that I would love

I also now find the flip out screen on the 60d very useful for awkward shots. Something I didn't realise before getting it!

I don't shoot video
 
We got to play around with a few cameras at the weekend so I can now see first hand why people always seem to say "canon feels better".... The first camera I picked up was the D5200, I thought it was very nice. Light, solid feeling and it felt good in my hands.

I then picked up the Sony A77 and again this felt good, bit heavier than the Nikon and a bit cheaper feeling but still to me felt solid enough and good in the hand.

Then I picked up the Canon D60 and thought, wow, this thing is serious. I don't know what it is, it's larger, heavier but it's not that making it feel more sturdy or higher quality, it just feels more substantial and comfortable. More natural in the hand. Can't describe it very well but it felt by far the best camera to hold and use.

The Nikon did feel great though, if it was down to £50 difference I'd take the Canon, but the Nikon spec wise for our needs and bang for buck money wise I just cannot justify the price of the Canon for what you get over the Nikon.

It is ultimately for her (I have to remember) and she actually prefered the Nikon as it's smaller for her wee hands and lighter etc. I tried explaining the menu's to her but she is of the stance that she'll be spending a lot of time learning and using anyway, so if the menu is more complicated or harder to use, she is willing to learn it all anyway so it's no point factoring this against cost and other features.

So still favouring the D5200 currently!
 
What lenses are you looking at getting...?

I'm assuming as you mention your dogs you'll want a long lens to shoot them, otherwisethey will just be blobs in the distance when running... If that's the case (and considering you don't seem to have a huge budget and a GF that wants to shoot when she's walking) I'd recommend a second hand Canon 70-200 f/4. Relatively small, light and around £400 used but it will focus fast and will probably keep up with the dogs, unlike a cheaper zoom lens like a 55-250 or 70-300. Nikon also do one but they are unlikely to come up used at the moment as they are pretty new.
 
Worth a gander at the D7000 as well I'd say, should be more or less the same price as a 60D (~£500 after the Nikon xmas cashback) and will give you that feel of build quality that you thought was lacking in the D5200 compared to the 60D, whilst still being marginally more compact than the 60D. But if your girlfriend prefers something smaller then maybe that's a moot point, and its never a bad thing to have some spare change to put towards lenses.
 
Last edited:
Amp34 said:
What lenses are you looking at getting...?

I'm assuming as you mention your dogs you'll want a long lens to shoot them, otherwisethey will just be blobs in the distance when running... If that's the case (and considering you don't seem to have a huge budget and a GF that wants to shoot when she's walking) I'd recommend a second hand Canon 70-200 f/4. Relatively small, light and around £400 used but it will focus fast and will probably keep up with the dogs, unlike a cheaper zoom lens like a 55-250 or 70-300. Nikon also do one but they are unlikely to come up used at the moment as they are pretty new.
Click to expand...

Initially it'll be the starter lens to see how she gets on and learns a bit more before spending any more money on a lens. But yeah, as you suggest it'll need to be something capable of focusing and catching the dogs running at silly speeds. I honestly haven't done that much research on lenses yet as I knwo both Nikon and Canon will do lenses suitable as the ranges are massive, however you do make a good point regards second hand lenses! Thanks for that input, we'll factor this.

King4aDay said:
Worth a gander at the D7000 as well I'd say, should be more or less the same price as a 60D (~£500 after the Nikon xmas cashback) and will give you that feel of build quality that you thought was lacking in the D5200 compared to the 60D, whilst still being marginally more compact than the 60D. But if your girlfriend prefers something smaller then maybe that's a moot point, and its never a bad thing to have some spare change to put towards lenses.
Click to expand...

I was wanting to get a good look at D7000 and see how it stacked up. The D5200 was the top Nikon they had in the shop but I was wanting to compare the higher price point variants to see as the Canon 60D versus 600D etc I was able to compare effectively. So a good shout and I will try to get my hands on one for sure, thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom