New dslr help.
Discussion
I'll warn you before I go any further, I'm indecisive.
So I'm in the hunt for a dslr, and have taken in wide ranging advice in relation to what to base a decision on. I have no lens collection but have experience with Nikon more so than canon but have used both.
With my budget, I have narrowed it down to entry level models so that I can spend more on lenses - 550d vs D3100. I am able to purchase both these models for the same price.
In favour of the Nikon is a slightly more compact body, I believe a more robust build and that I prefer the shape in my hand and button layout.
In favour of the canon is direct access to iso (which I use regularly) and wb (probably less so), while only one of these can be accessed on the Nikon (using the fn button). Also, I had outlined lenses I would like, including the 50mm f1.8 and 70-200 f4 and these are more expensive/not available in the Nikon lens lineup, and the lenses and accessories generally seem more expensive, particularly with only af-s lenses available to me if I wish to use Af with the d3100.
In a nutshell, having considered the two factors that I have been repeatedly advised to consider - the system as a whole and ergonomics - I consider it a 1-1 draw. Therefore which should I attach most importance to? Is there anything else I need to think about? Should the fact the 550d is ordinarily £150 more expensive steer me in that direction?
I will be using it for photos more than video, and outside under natural lighting - travel and street.
Any thoughts, experiences or advice would be appreciated.
So I'm in the hunt for a dslr, and have taken in wide ranging advice in relation to what to base a decision on. I have no lens collection but have experience with Nikon more so than canon but have used both.
With my budget, I have narrowed it down to entry level models so that I can spend more on lenses - 550d vs D3100. I am able to purchase both these models for the same price.
In favour of the Nikon is a slightly more compact body, I believe a more robust build and that I prefer the shape in my hand and button layout.
In favour of the canon is direct access to iso (which I use regularly) and wb (probably less so), while only one of these can be accessed on the Nikon (using the fn button). Also, I had outlined lenses I would like, including the 50mm f1.8 and 70-200 f4 and these are more expensive/not available in the Nikon lens lineup, and the lenses and accessories generally seem more expensive, particularly with only af-s lenses available to me if I wish to use Af with the d3100.
In a nutshell, having considered the two factors that I have been repeatedly advised to consider - the system as a whole and ergonomics - I consider it a 1-1 draw. Therefore which should I attach most importance to? Is there anything else I need to think about? Should the fact the 550d is ordinarily £150 more expensive steer me in that direction?
I will be using it for photos more than video, and outside under natural lighting - travel and street.
Any thoughts, experiences or advice would be appreciated.
LongQ said:
On the Canon front I would guess that for a very few quid more you could probably pick up a 600D and the articulated screen, imo, is worth having even if you are not a great video user. Would that tilt the balance at all?
To be honest I don't think it's something I'd use massively, and more importantly I have the chance to buy the 550d in boxed and virtually unused condition, for the same as the d3100 price (approx £370) whereas the 600D is £520 with equivalent lens from amazon, money I'd rather spend on accessories.waheikedawn said:
LongQ said:
On the Canon front I would guess that for a very few quid more you could probably pick up a 600D and the articulated screen, imo, is worth having even if you are not a great video user. Would that tilt the balance at all?
To be honest I don't think it's something I'd use massively, and more importantly I have the chance to buy the 550d in boxed and virtually unused condition, for the same as the d3100 price (approx £370) whereas the 600D is £520 with equivalent lens from amazon, money I'd rather spend on accessories.I wouldn't worry about the white balance. I've never once changed it on the camera (Canon 450D). Assuming you're going to be shooting RAW, then when you go to process your photos, it takes 2 seconds to set the white balance there. ISO, on the other hand, given your focus on street photography and natural light, is going to be critical.
My reason for saying absolutely 100% Canon is down to the lenses, however.
With my 450D, I can use absolutely any current (any many old) Canon lenses. In addition to this, there are EF-S lenses which can be used on crop sensor Canon DSLRs (550D, 600D, 60D, 7D) but not on the full frame cameras (5D upwards). As I'm highly unlikely to ever be able to justify the purchase of a full frame body, this basically means I can pick any Canon lens I want, purely on the basis of the lens itself.
Nikon, on the other hand, is the opposite. As you've already identified, you're limited to AF-S lenses which have the auto-focus motor built in to the lens. You would therefore be limited to a smaller subset of lenses.
I don't know what the situation is for Sigma, Tamron or Tokina lenses, but I certainly wouldn't want to be limited in my choice at all.
My reason for saying absolutely 100% Canon is down to the lenses, however.
With my 450D, I can use absolutely any current (any many old) Canon lenses. In addition to this, there are EF-S lenses which can be used on crop sensor Canon DSLRs (550D, 600D, 60D, 7D) but not on the full frame cameras (5D upwards). As I'm highly unlikely to ever be able to justify the purchase of a full frame body, this basically means I can pick any Canon lens I want, purely on the basis of the lens itself.
Nikon, on the other hand, is the opposite. As you've already identified, you're limited to AF-S lenses which have the auto-focus motor built in to the lens. You would therefore be limited to a smaller subset of lenses.
I don't know what the situation is for Sigma, Tamron or Tokina lenses, but I certainly wouldn't want to be limited in my choice at all.
Kermit power said:
I wouldn't worry about the white balance. I've never once changed it on the camera (Canon 450D). Assuming you're going to be shooting RAW, then when you go to process your photos, it takes 2 seconds to set the white balance there. ISO, on the other hand, given your focus on street photography and natural light, is going to be critical.
My reason for saying absolutely 100% Canon is down to the lenses, however.
With my 450D, I can use absolutely any current (any many old) Canon lenses. In addition to this, there are EF-S lenses which can be used on crop sensor Canon DSLRs (550D, 600D, 60D, 7D) but not on the full frame cameras (5D upwards). As I'm highly unlikely to ever be able to justify the purchase of a full frame body, this basically means I can pick any Canon lens I want, purely on the basis of the lens itself.
Nikon, on the other hand, is the opposite. As you've already identified, you're limited to AF-S lenses which have the auto-focus motor built in to the lens. You would therefore be limited to a smaller subset of lenses.
I don't know what the situation is for Sigma, Tamron or Tokina lenses, but I certainly wouldn't want to be limited in my choice at all.
This, pretty much word for word.My reason for saying absolutely 100% Canon is down to the lenses, however.
With my 450D, I can use absolutely any current (any many old) Canon lenses. In addition to this, there are EF-S lenses which can be used on crop sensor Canon DSLRs (550D, 600D, 60D, 7D) but not on the full frame cameras (5D upwards). As I'm highly unlikely to ever be able to justify the purchase of a full frame body, this basically means I can pick any Canon lens I want, purely on the basis of the lens itself.
Nikon, on the other hand, is the opposite. As you've already identified, you're limited to AF-S lenses which have the auto-focus motor built in to the lens. You would therefore be limited to a smaller subset of lenses.
I don't know what the situation is for Sigma, Tamron or Tokina lenses, but I certainly wouldn't want to be limited in my choice at all.
The 550D and D3100 aren't quite direct competitors. The 1000D is probably the direct Canon equivalent of the D3100, so the 550D may have a slightly larger feature set over the D3100. Have you looked at the D5100?
I tried both the 600D and Nikon D5100 and ended up opting for the Nikon. I just preferred everything about it (ergonomics and interface) when I used them both. I was a bit concerned about the lack of focus motor in the body, but as pretty much all new Nikon lenses have motors built in to them, as do a lot of the Tamron and Sigma Nikon fit lenses, it need not be a limiting factor. There is no shortage of compatible lenses.
Image quality on the D5100 is excellent and shares the same sensor as the D7000.
I tried both the 600D and Nikon D5100 and ended up opting for the Nikon. I just preferred everything about it (ergonomics and interface) when I used them both. I was a bit concerned about the lack of focus motor in the body, but as pretty much all new Nikon lenses have motors built in to them, as do a lot of the Tamron and Sigma Nikon fit lenses, it need not be a limiting factor. There is no shortage of compatible lenses.
Image quality on the D5100 is excellent and shares the same sensor as the D7000.
Kermit power said:
Nikon, on the other hand, is the opposite. As you've already identified, you're limited to AF-S lenses which have the auto-focus motor built in to the lens. You would therefore be limited to a smaller subset of lenses.
1) Most modern Nikon lenses are AF-S; so the problem evaporates2) If you really want to use a lens that is not AF-S (which are usually more specialist), you can still focus manually.
The Nikon F-mount has been going since 1959 and all Nikon lenses 1959-2012 use it. So without getting into a brand debate, I think you will find Nikon stuff just as compatible if not more so.
I'm in almost the same position as the OP, I'm about to (finally) commit to a DSLR after years of deliberation. I've seen two interesting deals, a Nikon F3100 for £360.00 c/w with the 18-55 lens and a Canon 550D which comes with a lens kit including the 18 to 55 and the 75 to 300 Zoom, for about £550.00. Adding in an equivalent Nikon Zoom takes the D3100 up to about £600.00.
What I appear to be detecting here though is the Canon's 'kit' lenses are not up to the standard of their others, is that the case?, they certainly seem to be missing the image stabilisation, or vibration reduction systems.
Also my experience of DSLR is zilch, I haven't used an SLR properly for years though I do still have my Canon A1 (35mm film... remember that!?) with some good FD lenses. Is there any merit in sticking with Canon, will the FD's be usable???.
Just about to set off to play with them in a local branch of Jessops to fine tune the decision.
What I appear to be detecting here though is the Canon's 'kit' lenses are not up to the standard of their others, is that the case?, they certainly seem to be missing the image stabilisation, or vibration reduction systems.
Also my experience of DSLR is zilch, I haven't used an SLR properly for years though I do still have my Canon A1 (35mm film... remember that!?) with some good FD lenses. Is there any merit in sticking with Canon, will the FD's be usable???.
Just about to set off to play with them in a local branch of Jessops to fine tune the decision.
CommanderJameson said:
The Canon 18-55mm kit lens most certainly is image-stabilised.
Some are, some not. Most current deals should have the IS version but it's worth checking.That said - does it matter? The base non-IS lens that came with my elderly 400D is non-IS but performs well enough. The version that came with my recent 600D purchase IS IS and also seems to be OK, though I have not used it much. IS really only matters in very specific circumstances and not everyone will have the need often enough to make it a big deal.
Yes you can use FD lenses on EOS bodies providing you buy an adapter. However they don't really work usefully for the shorter focal lengths unless you want to be very experimental or, maybe do Macro stuff. The advantage for macro is that most of the old lenses have manual aperture controls too and so offer the potential to focus 'wide' open and then stop down. Tripod and good technique required of course!
You can probably get away with using something like a 70-200 zoom, maybe even with focus confirmation (if the body can offer it) though I would not necessarily count on it as 100% accurate. Focusing using the eyepiece is not as aided as the split prism on your A1 (I asume it has split prism) but Live View would be fine.
If you have any of the old long Primes they can work quite well but remember you will be all manual and need to adapt techniques accordingly.
MOst of the adapters have an extra piece of glass in them to provide focus to infinity. There is a guy in Canada who makes handmade brass adapters without the extra lens and thinner so that, in theory, you will still get focus to infinity or something close to it. Expensive but top quality.
HTH.
Simpo Two said:
Kermit power said:
Nikon, on the other hand, is the opposite. As you've already identified, you're limited to AF-S lenses which have the auto-focus motor built in to the lens. You would therefore be limited to a smaller subset of lenses.
1) Most modern Nikon lenses are AF-S; so the problem evaporates2) If you really want to use a lens that is not AF-S (which are usually more specialist), you can still focus manually.
The Nikon F-mount has been going since 1959 and all Nikon lenses 1959-2012 use it. So without getting into a brand debate, I think you will find Nikon stuff just as compatible if not more so.
The cheapest 50mm AF-S prime is £280 vs £84 for Canon. There's a sub £100 Nikon lens, but it's AF only.
Likewise, Nikon AF-S 17-55mm f2.8 is £1k+, as opposed to £700 for Canon (with IS) or £345 for Tamron & £475 for Sigma.
Do the Sigma & Tamron lenses work with AF-S? If not, it looks expensive to go much beyond the kit lenses on AF-S. If they do, then I'd have less of an objection to it.
Kermit power said:
I've just been and had a look, and admittedly there are more than I'd realised, but they're bloody expensive in comparison to Canon, Sigma & Tamron lenses.
The cheapest 50mm AF-S prime is £280 vs £84 for Canon. There's a sub £100 Nikon lens, but it's AF only.
Likewise, Nikon AF-S 17-55mm f2.8 is £1k+, as opposed to £700 for Canon (with IS) or £345 for Tamron & £475 for Sigma.
Do the Sigma & Tamron lenses work with AF-S? If not, it looks expensive to go much beyond the kit lenses on AF-S. If they do, then I'd have less of an objection to it.
Ultrasonic/silent wave focusing is a function of the lens - Sigma call it HSM; not sure what Tamron call it. I use a Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 HSM not because the body doesn't have a motor (it does) but because unlike screw-drives its fast and quiet so I get shots I otherwise wouldn't.The cheapest 50mm AF-S prime is £280 vs £84 for Canon. There's a sub £100 Nikon lens, but it's AF only.
Likewise, Nikon AF-S 17-55mm f2.8 is £1k+, as opposed to £700 for Canon (with IS) or £345 for Tamron & £475 for Sigma.
Do the Sigma & Tamron lenses work with AF-S? If not, it looks expensive to go much beyond the kit lenses on AF-S. If they do, then I'd have less of an objection to it.
Looks like you may have a point on price, though a swift trawl of reviews seems to indicate the Canon 17-55mm is not as good as the Nikon equivalent (The latter is my weapon of choice but I've never used the former). As so often, the rule of YGWYPF kicks in.
I suppose the general plan is that entry-level users will stay with kit or similar lenses which are AF-S and affordable and possibly bundled; those wanting to use every lens in the box are more likely to buy a higher-level body which has a focus motor anyway.
Simpo Two said:
I suppose the general plan is that entry-level users will stay with kit or similar lenses which are AF-S and affordable and possibly bundled; those wanting to use every lens in the box are more likely to buy a higher-level body which has a focus motor anyway.
I'm sure you're correct. However, I started out as a beginner not really sure about anything, and rapidly discovered I wanted faster lenses. I would've been pretty narked if I'd found out my body either couldn't use them or tripled the price! At least it sounds like Sigma HSM provides more affordable alternatives, so the situation isn't as bad as it might have been.
Kermit power said:
I've just been and had a look, and admittedly there are more than I'd realised, but they're bloody expensive in comparison to Canon, Sigma & Tamron lenses.
The cheapest 50mm AF-S prime is £280 vs £84 for Canon. There's a sub £100 Nikon lens, but it's AF only.
Likewise, Nikon AF-S 17-55mm f2.8 is £1k+, as opposed to £700 for Canon (with IS) or £345 for Tamron & £475 for Sigma.
Do the Sigma & Tamron lenses work with AF-S? If not, it looks expensive to go much beyond the kit lenses on AF-S. If they do, then I'd have less of an objection to it.
All Sigma HSM lenses have the motors in the lens and will work. The majority of modern Tamrons do too.The cheapest 50mm AF-S prime is £280 vs £84 for Canon. There's a sub £100 Nikon lens, but it's AF only.
Likewise, Nikon AF-S 17-55mm f2.8 is £1k+, as opposed to £700 for Canon (with IS) or £345 for Tamron & £475 for Sigma.
Do the Sigma & Tamron lenses work with AF-S? If not, it looks expensive to go much beyond the kit lenses on AF-S. If they do, then I'd have less of an objection to it.
The 50mm lens you have quoted is the f1.4. Canon's 50mm f1.4 is also £280.
There is an f1.8 50mm for around £150 or a 35mm prime for £140. The Canon nifty fifty is cheaper, but I have heard that the build quality of the Nikon is better.
I haven't had a need to look at the 17-55mm so no idea how they compare, but I would expect for that price difference that the Nikon lens is better and would justify the price difference. There normally isn't much in it price wise either way.
Just comparing on the focal length and aperture doesn't paint the whole picture. The Canon EF 55-200 f/4.5-5.6 2 USM is £700 on Amazon, the Nikon 55-200MM F/4-5.6 AF-S VR DX is £144. But I know that that is a cheaper end Nikon lens, and I don't know anything about the Canon lens, but expect that it is a significantly better lens to justify that price.
Edited by ChipsAndCheese on Friday 14th September 15:42
ChipsAndCheese said:
The 50mm lens you have quoted is the f1.4. Canon's 50mm f1.4 is also £280.
There is an f1.8 50mm for around £150 or a 35mm prime for £140. The Canon nifty fifty is cheaper, but I have heard that the build quality of the Nikon is better.
That's my point. You can get a cheap & cheerful 50mm prime for both Canon and Nikon (the latter being available for under £100), but only if you have a Nikon AF body, not AF-S. If you have the latter, you have to buy more expensive glass.There is an f1.8 50mm for around £150 or a 35mm prime for £140. The Canon nifty fifty is cheaper, but I have heard that the build quality of the Nikon is better.
ChipsAndCheese said:
I haven't had a need to look at the 17-55mm so no idea how they compare, but I would expect for that price difference that the Nikon lens is better and would justify the price difference. There normally isn't much in it price wise either way.
Possibly, but it's nice to have the option! At least, as established, Sigma provide that.ChipsAndCheese said:
Just comparing on the focal length and aperture doesn't paint the whole picture. The Canon EF 55-200 f/4.5-5.6 2 USM is £700 on Amazon, the Nikon 55-200MM F/4-5.6 AF-S VR DX is £144. But I know that that is a cheaper end Nikon lens, and I don't know anything about the Canon lens, but expect that it is a significantly better lens to justify that price.
There's something wrong with that price. The Canon lens you've quoted is a discontinued one that sold for about £130.Kermit power said:
That's my point. You can get a cheap & cheerful 50mm prime for both Canon and Nikon (the latter being available for under £100), but only if you have a Nikon AF body, not AF-S. If you have the latter, you have to buy more expensive glass.
True, but I was pointing out that the difference in price wasn't as much as you originally made out. Like for like lenses - f1.4 vs f1.4, the price is the same.Kermit power said:
There's something wrong with that price. The Canon lens you've quoted is a discontinued one that sold for about £130.
I did think the price difference was rather extreme. The seller is a place called Discounts+ - not very good at discounts if they are charging five and a half times the RRP.In general summing up...
Both Canon & Nikon have a variety of common focal length lenses at many different price points - from what i've read, the 'body focus' lenses issue on Nikon isn't what it used to be a number of years back (Nikon have nice (semi)cheap af-motor incorporating 35mm and 50mm lenses).
Unless you are looking at very specific, specialized lenses (like mega-expensive telezooms, crazy macro kit, etc) then either brand shout have lenses and accessories to suit
I use Canon but if I was buying eveything again I'd have no worries about looking at Nikon offerings
Both Canon & Nikon have a variety of common focal length lenses at many different price points - from what i've read, the 'body focus' lenses issue on Nikon isn't what it used to be a number of years back (Nikon have nice (semi)cheap af-motor incorporating 35mm and 50mm lenses).
Unless you are looking at very specific, specialized lenses (like mega-expensive telezooms, crazy macro kit, etc) then either brand shout have lenses and accessories to suit
I use Canon but if I was buying eveything again I'd have no worries about looking at Nikon offerings
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff