OT- Digital SLR

Submitted by bcsblue on

OK, so im looking at buying a digital SLR camera. I was looking at Nikon D5000 or Canon Rebel T1i.

I am a fairly novice photographer. Took a few photo classes in high school but nothing since.

Just looking for any advice. Anyone own either? Are they worth the price for live view and video.

Not trying to start a canon/nikon fanboy flameware here, just any helpful tips. Thanks

BlockM

December 28th, 2009 at 11:43 AM ^

I have a Sony Alpha200, and it's worked pretty well for me. It's a bit large/heavy, but I got it for a very good price on eBay. My sister is more of a photographer and has a Canon and loves it.

In my experience, I don't think I would have used a video function, but live view would be nice at times. Occasionally it's a little bit of a hassle to have to look through the tiny eyepiece.

Since I don't own either of the two, my only piece of advice is to not worry about the mexapixels as much as the other features/quality. My sister's camera is only 6 MP, and the photos it takes look just as good as my 10 MP unless they're blown up above an 8x10. Worry more about getting something with a good quality lens.

mattkast

December 28th, 2009 at 11:46 AM ^

While I don't own either (my Pentax is my baby), I have used both a few times. I found the Canon to feel much better, both in terms of physical bulk and also their menu system compared to the Nikon.

MGoBlue95

December 28th, 2009 at 11:46 AM ^

I am also a novice, with a few classes under my belt, and I just moved up from a film DSR to a D5000 over the holidays. I'm very happy with it. It's pretty sophisticated, and has a bit of a learning curve with the various advanced controls, but it can just as easily be used as a pre-programmed point-and-shoot with a little more creative control. I recommend a good third party guide (David Busch's Guide is great) along with the camera.

I can't foresee myself using much video, and Live View is nice, but the tilt screen is cool and prices are pretty reasonable if you shop around a bit.

mgowin

December 28th, 2009 at 3:34 PM ^

I bought my first DSLR camera (Nikon D80) in summer 2007 to take on my honeymoon trip to Europe. I have been very pleased with the decision. With over 10,000 photos taken, I have yet to encounter any abnormal performance issues. I choose to go with Nikon over Cannon because they were in front of the back and forth techno-battle at the time, however both manufacture great cameras.

I feel that going with the more professional oriented prosumer models will give you room to grow in your abilities and equipment (i.e. additional lenses) before you need to upgrade. I picked the D80 (which is now D90) because it shared the same sensor as the more expensive D200 (now D300) but lacked it's more expensive enclosure and a few of its frills. If it were me making the purchase I would find a cheaper prosumer model that shared the sensor with a higher-end model.

Also, do not overlook the quality of lens that you choose. The kit lens that came with my D80 (24-105mm) is versatile and performs admirably, however it can't compete with the quality offered by a nice fixed focal length Nikkor.

My camera does not have video recording capabilities and I'm not interested in the option. I bought the camera for landscape and architectural photography, and have no interest in DSLR video. This is probably just a 'hey get off my lawn' reaction, but my college photography courses all required old school fully manual 35mm SLR's, so that is what I know how to use the best.

I hope that any of my babbling can be of assistance! Good Luck!

Don

December 28th, 2009 at 12:18 PM ^

It's my first DSLR, and I'm still learning about all the various settings and capabilities. I've never used a Nikon or any other DSLR, so I don't have any basis for comparison, but so far I don't have any complaints.

It can shoot video in HD, but the frame rate at that resolution is only 24, and most of the reviews I've read say that you're probably better off shooting in the non-HD format so you can get a higher frame rate. I haven't shot any video yet so I can't speak from experience there.

BlockM is right about the megapixels vs. other features. Since I'm a graphic designer I frequently need to use my photos at a full-bleed 8.5 x 11 or 11x17, so the 15MP the T1i has is distinct advantage. If you're never going to need to do that, then a better lens than the standard Canon kit 18-55 lens is probably a good idea.

If you haven't already done so, visiting these camera review sites can be helpful:

http://www.steves-digicams.com/

http://www.dcresource.com/

Sgt. Wolverine

December 28th, 2009 at 12:36 PM ^

Though I'm supposed to be duty-bound as a Canon shooter to tell you to buy Canon, the truth is that either one is capable of taking fine photos. I think there are two relevant thoughts when choosing between the two brands:

1)Are there significant differences in feature sets -- does one camera have something the other doesn't? If one has a feature the other doesn't and it's something you want, that'll make your decision easier.

2)How do they feel in your hands? How do you like the button and menu layouts? They're set up differently, and chances are you'll prefer one over the other.

The first question can be answered easily with research on the internet, but the second requires you to go to a store (preferably a camera store -- they're more likely to have knowledgeable employees) and get your hands on the cameras to see what you think. I'd highly recommend doing that.

I do want to echo two very good points from BlockM: megapixels are overrated and lenses aren't.

As to megapixels: they're great for marketing purposes (OMG our numbers are bigger!), but at a certain point they're really not that important for most purposes, especially for normal consumers (as opposed to pro shooters). The quality of megapixels is considerably more important than the number: a marginal 15mp sensor is less desirable than a good 8mp sensor. So it's okay to have the megapixels, but don't base any purchasing decisions on that number.

As to lenses: they're what actually brings the image into the camera, so they're the key piece of the photography puzzle. A top-of-the-line camera body paired with a bad lens will produce worse pictures than an entry-level body paired with a good lens because the body can't see anything on its own.

That said, you probably don't need to worry quite as much about lenses since it doesn't sound like you're doing this for a living. If you're just enjoying photography as a hobby, you don't necessarily need a great lens -- just a decent lens.

Finally: I've found it useful to read a bunch of user reviews of gear to look for patterns -- if several people mention the same good/bad point, then it's something to consider. To that end, I read the reviews here:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/

You should be able to get a pretty good perspective on the gear's real-world performance there. Again, though, I'd go to a camera store and get the gear in your own hands before making a final decision.

nuck

December 28th, 2009 at 12:41 PM ^

Hi bcsblue,

I was in the exact same boat as you were. Comparing the D5000 and the T1i I came out with the conclusion that the T1i is the better camera (you can read a couple comparisons here: http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/30/canon-eos-rebel-t1i-impressions-head… and here: http://gizmodo.com/5234607/canon-rebel-t1i-vs-nikon-d5000-entry+level-d… )

However, I actually ended up finding a great deal on the Nikon D40 (less than $400 with the kit lens) and am exceptionally pleased with it. It doesnt have the megapixels of the higher cameras but this makes pracctically no difference unless you are printing pictures larger than 30". It also doesn't have a video mode. For me, video was going to be a pretty important feature but frankly the D5000 and the T1i video modes are not as good as they should be (the Nikon's with the Jello effect http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7ntnASJnNM and the T1i which only does 20 fps 1080p). Because of this I decided to wait for the next generation Canon 550D which will most likely have 30 fps/24 fps 1080p.

In the end the D40 takes incredible pictures and I was able to use the money I saved to buy a couple lenses. I'd much rather have my D40 with a few lenses than either of the above with just the stock lens.

Another good resource is www.kenrockwell.com see his Recommended Camera section (he also goes for the D40) http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/recommended-cameras.htm

StephenRKass

December 28th, 2009 at 7:21 PM ^

Great suggestion to read Ken Rockwell. He is pretty unbiased, uses many camera brands. Best piece of advice from Ken: you can take good photos with any camera. Yes, read the reviews, but don't be a complete equipment geek. I happen to use a bit older Nikon (D70s.) My money definitely would go for a high end lens rather than a body.

Regarding video capability, I would strongly recommend getting both a high-def video camera, and a still camera, and not have a "one-size-fits-all" mentality. For point of reference, I have a "camera" on my cell phone, but almost never use it unless I really need a photo of something and don't have another camera with me.

Sgt. Wolverine

December 29th, 2009 at 12:29 AM ^

"Regarding video capability, I would strongly recommend getting both a high-def video camera, and a still camera, and not have a 'one-size-fits-all' mentality."

It drives me crazy that Canon is trying to sell its Rebels as video cameras now (through a new tv commercial touting "moving photography," which...yeah, let's go to the theater and watch a talkie!). Video cameras do video best, and still cameras do still best. They can cross over, but no matter what the marketers try to tell you, they won't be as good outside their primary purposes.

Glen Rice 41

December 28th, 2009 at 1:05 PM ^

It depends on how much you really want to spend and what you are looking for. My girlfriend is a wedding photographer and prefers Canon products. The Mark II is one of the best available.

nuck

December 28th, 2009 at 1:19 PM ^

The Mark II's list price is also $12,000 ....

Both Nikon's and Canon's will take superb pictures. Based on picture quality and mechanics alone my impression is that the general opinion among photography enthusiasts is that Nikon's take "better" pictures. Canon definitely has better video recording than Nikon so if that is important to you, I'd definitely go for Canon.

Sgt. Wolverine

December 28th, 2009 at 1:34 PM ^

My guess is he meant the 5D MkII, which retails for a surprisingly affordable $2,700 at B&H. That truly is one of the best portrait cameras on the market.

I think the real-world difference between Nikon and Canon is less than what pixel-magnifying photography enthusiasts would have you believe. For nearly all realistic purposes, the quality difference between the two is negligible. And outside optical quality, there is a very real difference between the two: since Canon is a larger company with a higher sales volume, its high-end lenses tend to be cheaper than Nikon. For instance, the Canon 400mm 2.8 lens is $7,100 (again, at B&H), whereas the Nikon 400mm 2.8 is $8,800. That's not a difference consumers care about, but for those who have to buy 400mm or 500mm lenses, it's significant.

Jinxed

December 28th, 2009 at 1:41 PM ^

QFT...

generally.. the only difference between Nikon and Canon is that higher end Nikon lenses tend to be more expensive.. Canon gives you a better performance:price ratio.

I shoot Nikon because that's the company I started with.. haha.. it's very hard to jump from one company to another once you buy the "crown jewels" of your lens collection..

Sgt. Wolverine

December 28th, 2009 at 1:21 PM ^

Your girlfriend is crazy. My unofficial business slogan is "Everything But Weddings" -- I shot two weddings and immediately decided I would rather live to see my 40th birthday than make lots of money from shooting weddings.

Seriously, I have lots of respect for good wedding photographers. Weddings are difficult.

bronxblue

December 28th, 2009 at 2:11 PM ^

We just bought my Dad the Nikon D3000 for Christmas (the deal came with an extra telephoto lens and case). A more budget-friendly version of the Nikon D5000 (with obvious quality differences), but we figured he was going to use it for standard shooting plus some vacation pics. He seems to like it.

Both the Nikon and Canon look like good deals. As others suggested, maybe go a camera store and test-drive both for a bit to get an idea which one best fits your hands and expected usage. As much as I hate to admit it, I have smaller hands for a guy my size (that's what she said!), and when I look for cameras and other electronics I sometimes find that buttons are too small/far-spaced for easy usage. Something to consider.

bcsblue

December 28th, 2009 at 2:34 PM ^

Great, thanks for the good info. Ill dig around online a little more. From what I have read most people think these 2 cameras are very comparable. I got lots of best buy $ for Christmas, the Nikon D5000 is about 100 dollars cheaper.

Also, how important is it to have a better lens. Both come with a 55mm , there are some packages for 150-200 dollar more that come with a 200mm lens and a bag. Is this something I should get right off the bat, or wait a while and get a better lens?

teldar

December 28th, 2009 at 4:54 PM ^

If you want a phenomenal review from a CAMERA site, go to DP review.

Not engadget or gizmodo. Those are tech sites and review hardware, they're not camera sites. Nuck is right though on saying you should look at reviews as well.

And I definitely agree with Sgt. I still havn't bought a camera as I don't have employment as of yet..... But spring for the lenses. Not the megapixels.

I'm looking at the T1i and the Pentax K-x. The K-7 if you really want to spend the cash. The nice thing about the Pentax line is that the IS is body mounted, not lens mounted, so you're not paying for it every time. I'll say that the T1i feels a little small to my hands. If I had bought it online, I don't think I would have complained, but I want to get my hands on a Pentax to see how it feels.

If you look at the Pentax review, go to the compare to page and it will give comprehensive lists of all features and what they feel is better. I will say that I've read that the K-x has possibly the best sensor in its price range, even if it's not the highest pixels.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxkx/page21.asp

Even if you don't want the Pentax, it's a good review that compares the cameras well.

edit:
And you can get a 2 lens kit for the pentax which is a 18-55 and a 50-300mm super tele lens. Supposed to be decent for kit lenses. I've read Olympus has the best kit lenses. Super incredible deals are usually offered on kit lenses. Something nicer is a good idea, particularly if you want to be a serious photographer, but I would get whatever they have available in a kit, and when you decide what you want, sell the kit lens for what you payed for it and get a real lens