Camera opinions sought on low end digital SLR
-
Good morning CPiains. My wife and I recently borrowed a 450D, and rather liked the results. The images were a LOT nicer that my pocket snapper. I wasn't surprised they were better, but it wasn;t a tiddly bit. Now we're persuaded to go up a stage, and I'm looking at the Nikon D3100[^], and the Canon EOS 550D[^] We have no lenses, and no brand loyalty. Some video ability would be great (hence these two), but it's not the raison d'etre. I'm also not about to start my own photographic studio, hence looking at the ~£500 mark, not the ~£1000. I am interested in good photos in bad lighting - my little snapper is rubbish at evening photos... Do you have any alternates I should be looking at? Is the Canon worth the 50% higher price? Are you a happy owner? Iain.
I am one of "those foreigners coming over here and stealing our jobs". Yay me!
Iain, I've had a few EOS D-SLR, currently got a 400D and 500D. I use the 400 D mostly for sub-aqua work as I don't want to stump up the vast readies it would take to get a new husing... In my opinion both are excellent and work really well. One thing I would say is that its worth spending good money on a suitable lens....
-
Iain, I've had a few EOS D-SLR, currently got a 400D and 500D. I use the 400 D mostly for sub-aqua work as I don't want to stump up the vast readies it would take to get a new husing... In my opinion both are excellent and work really well. One thing I would say is that its worth spending good money on a suitable lens....
Rhuros wrote:
its worth spending good money on a suitable lens
Excellent point.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
Good morning CPiains. My wife and I recently borrowed a 450D, and rather liked the results. The images were a LOT nicer that my pocket snapper. I wasn't surprised they were better, but it wasn;t a tiddly bit. Now we're persuaded to go up a stage, and I'm looking at the Nikon D3100[^], and the Canon EOS 550D[^] We have no lenses, and no brand loyalty. Some video ability would be great (hence these two), but it's not the raison d'etre. I'm also not about to start my own photographic studio, hence looking at the ~£500 mark, not the ~£1000. I am interested in good photos in bad lighting - my little snapper is rubbish at evening photos... Do you have any alternates I should be looking at? Is the Canon worth the 50% higher price? Are you a happy owner? Iain.
I am one of "those foreigners coming over here and stealing our jobs". Yay me!
I have been thinking of choosing one between the SAME EXACT models Nikon D5100 and Canon EOS 550D for the past few weeks. Finally, I decided to go with the Canon EOS 550D. My decision is purely based on what I felt was better. To decide, I went to a nearby store and got a "feel" of both cameras, and I somehow liked the ergonomics of the canon because it felt nicer in my hands. I took some photos with both cameras, and to my eyes they looked nearly the same, although I liked the images produced by canon by a tiny bit better (don't know why - I'm not a photography expert). Here's a dpreview sideby side comparison (another user already pointed out the site to you): http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-side?products=nikon_d3100&products=canon_eos550d&sortDir=ascending[^] You mentioned about video - they both are capable of recording video in full HD format, in stereo. The canon has more megapixels (although the sensor size is a tiny bit smaller than that of the nikon). I was told by the experts that I cannot possibly go wrong with either cameras, and that they're both offering excellent bang for the buck. I'll be buying mine in a couple of weeks.
"Real men drive manual transmission" - Rajesh.
modified on Monday, June 20, 2011 6:42 AM
-
I have been thinking of choosing one between the SAME EXACT models Nikon D5100 and Canon EOS 550D for the past few weeks. Finally, I decided to go with the Canon EOS 550D. My decision is purely based on what I felt was better. To decide, I went to a nearby store and got a "feel" of both cameras, and I somehow liked the ergonomics of the canon because it felt nicer in my hands. I took some photos with both cameras, and to my eyes they looked nearly the same, although I liked the images produced by canon by a tiny bit better (don't know why - I'm not a photography expert). Here's a dpreview sideby side comparison (another user already pointed out the site to you): http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-side?products=nikon_d3100&products=canon_eos550d&sortDir=ascending[^] You mentioned about video - they both are capable of recording video in full HD format, in stereo. The canon has more megapixels (although the sensor size is a tiny bit smaller than that of the nikon). I was told by the experts that I cannot possibly go wrong with either cameras, and that they're both offering excellent bang for the buck. I'll be buying mine in a couple of weeks.
"Real men drive manual transmission" - Rajesh.
modified on Monday, June 20, 2011 6:42 AM
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote:
I liked the images produced by canon by a tiny bit better (don't know why - I'm not a photography expert).
Comparison of image quality is very subjective, so you should go with what you like better.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
Good morning CPiains. My wife and I recently borrowed a 450D, and rather liked the results. The images were a LOT nicer that my pocket snapper. I wasn't surprised they were better, but it wasn;t a tiddly bit. Now we're persuaded to go up a stage, and I'm looking at the Nikon D3100[^], and the Canon EOS 550D[^] We have no lenses, and no brand loyalty. Some video ability would be great (hence these two), but it's not the raison d'etre. I'm also not about to start my own photographic studio, hence looking at the ~£500 mark, not the ~£1000. I am interested in good photos in bad lighting - my little snapper is rubbish at evening photos... Do you have any alternates I should be looking at? Is the Canon worth the 50% higher price? Are you a happy owner? Iain.
I am one of "those foreigners coming over here and stealing our jobs". Yay me!
Iain Clarke, Warrior Programmer wrote:
Is the Canon worth the 50% higher price?
Yes, if it's going to double as a video camera. If it's stills only and you are never going to use it for taking videos then the answer is no. BTW, I went through a similar Nikon D3100 vs Canon EOS 550D comparison last month and finally settled on the EOS 550D.
Und wenn du lange in einen abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein.
-
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote:
I liked the images produced by canon by a tiny bit better (don't know why - I'm not a photography expert).
Comparison of image quality is very subjective, so you should go with what you like better.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
Good morning CPiains. My wife and I recently borrowed a 450D, and rather liked the results. The images were a LOT nicer that my pocket snapper. I wasn't surprised they were better, but it wasn;t a tiddly bit. Now we're persuaded to go up a stage, and I'm looking at the Nikon D3100[^], and the Canon EOS 550D[^] We have no lenses, and no brand loyalty. Some video ability would be great (hence these two), but it's not the raison d'etre. I'm also not about to start my own photographic studio, hence looking at the ~£500 mark, not the ~£1000. I am interested in good photos in bad lighting - my little snapper is rubbish at evening photos... Do you have any alternates I should be looking at? Is the Canon worth the 50% higher price? Are you a happy owner? Iain.
I am one of "those foreigners coming over here and stealing our jobs". Yay me!
If you can afford just a bit more I'd recommend the EOS 600D with the articulating LCD screen - very useful.
-
If you can afford just a bit more I'd recommend the EOS 600D with the articulating LCD screen - very useful.
Just like computers, and cars... there's always a great reason to spend "just a little bit more", until you've doubled the price! And I am very weak against it... Iain ps, Mind you, it really is only a little bit more... (but it's extra weight)
I am one of "those foreigners coming over here and stealing our jobs". Yay me!
-
If you can afford just a bit more I'd recommend the EOS 600D with the articulating LCD screen - very useful.
viaducting wrote:
articulating LCD screen - very useful
Only useful if you are a narcissist who's going to be taking an insane amount of self portraits. I had a look at the EOS 600D as well. Frankly, not worth the extra expense.
Und wenn du lange in einen abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein.
-
Just like computers, and cars... there's always a great reason to spend "just a little bit more", until you've doubled the price! And I am very weak against it... Iain ps, Mind you, it really is only a little bit more... (but it's extra weight)
I am one of "those foreigners coming over here and stealing our jobs". Yay me!
I ruled out the 600d off the reckoning, because it's not worth the extra money just to get that flashy articulated screen. Opinions differ though.
"Real men drive manual transmission" - Rajesh.
-
Good morning CPiains. My wife and I recently borrowed a 450D, and rather liked the results. The images were a LOT nicer that my pocket snapper. I wasn't surprised they were better, but it wasn;t a tiddly bit. Now we're persuaded to go up a stage, and I'm looking at the Nikon D3100[^], and the Canon EOS 550D[^] We have no lenses, and no brand loyalty. Some video ability would be great (hence these two), but it's not the raison d'etre. I'm also not about to start my own photographic studio, hence looking at the ~£500 mark, not the ~£1000. I am interested in good photos in bad lighting - my little snapper is rubbish at evening photos... Do you have any alternates I should be looking at? Is the Canon worth the 50% higher price? Are you a happy owner? Iain.
I am one of "those foreigners coming over here and stealing our jobs". Yay me!
Iain, I recently purchased the Nikon D5000, similar features and am still discovering it but absolutely love it. When I researched before buying mine they both had the features I wanted but like the look and feel of the Nikon better. Another selling feature was that I had a film Nikon before this one and took a lot of photos with it and really liked it.
"Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forward." Kierkegaard, Søren
-
viaducting wrote:
articulating LCD screen - very useful
Only useful if you are a narcissist who's going to be taking an insane amount of self portraits. I had a look at the EOS 600D as well. Frankly, not worth the extra expense.
Und wenn du lange in einen abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein.
Or if you want to take images low down without lying in wet grass, or take pictures holding the camera above your head, or (in my case) with the camera attached to a movable piece of equipment the articulated screen lets you frame the shot and focus without having to stand on a step-ladder or kneel down for long periods. Et cetera et cetera. There are many uses for the articulated screen which don't involve self-portraits.
-
I ruled out the 600d off the reckoning, because it's not worth the extra money just to get that flashy articulated screen. Opinions differ though.
"Real men drive manual transmission" - Rajesh.
It is absolutely worth it if you want to take pictures in situations where holding the camera to your eye is very inconvenient (see my reply below).
-
It is absolutely worth it if you want to take pictures in situations where holding the camera to your eye is very inconvenient (see my reply below).
The articulated screen would be of good use in situations that you describe. However, my opinion is that the premium I pay for that little screen is not worth it. If it were a reasonable amount of money, I'd opt for it. But like I said, opinions differ.
"Real men drive manual transmission" - Rajesh.
-
I ruled out the 600d off the reckoning, because it's not worth the extra money just to get that flashy articulated screen. Opinions differ though.
"Real men drive manual transmission" - Rajesh.
I have not used the articulating screen on the DSLR bodies (I shoot currently with the 40D, and it wasn't available on these), but when I had my little G2, I LOVED it! Overhead shots, low angle shots, and the occasional family/self-portrait made it very much worth the little bit extra.
Matt Newby President, Matt Newby Enterprises, Inc. matt@mattnewby.com
-
I have not used the articulating screen on the DSLR bodies (I shoot currently with the 40D, and it wasn't available on these), but when I had my little G2, I LOVED it! Overhead shots, low angle shots, and the occasional family/self-portrait made it very much worth the little bit extra.
Matt Newby President, Matt Newby Enterprises, Inc. matt@mattnewby.com
I agree on its usability part, but I have a problem with how much is "little bit". I could buy the 550D at 40000 INR, but the 600D costs approximately 10000 INR more, and it just has that articulated screen as an "improvement" over the 550D. The dpreview tests also reveal that the 550D actually outperforms the 600D in certain tests. These factors make me think that there's no value for the additional money I'll have to pay. I also think that the number of overhead and low angle shots will be really less in number that I can stretch up or sit down a little bit if required in such occasions. But then, it's just me thinking that way. :)
"Real men drive manual transmission" - Rajesh.
-
Good morning CPiains. My wife and I recently borrowed a 450D, and rather liked the results. The images were a LOT nicer that my pocket snapper. I wasn't surprised they were better, but it wasn;t a tiddly bit. Now we're persuaded to go up a stage, and I'm looking at the Nikon D3100[^], and the Canon EOS 550D[^] We have no lenses, and no brand loyalty. Some video ability would be great (hence these two), but it's not the raison d'etre. I'm also not about to start my own photographic studio, hence looking at the ~£500 mark, not the ~£1000. I am interested in good photos in bad lighting - my little snapper is rubbish at evening photos... Do you have any alternates I should be looking at? Is the Canon worth the 50% higher price? Are you a happy owner? Iain.
I am one of "those foreigners coming over here and stealing our jobs". Yay me!
I've just upgraded from a Canon 350D to a 550D, and I'm very happy with it - it's a great camera, and well worth the investment. However, if you've no existing hardware to think about I'd really suggest seeing which of the two you prefer and going with that. FWIW you can get a 550D body for about £525 on the street now; obviously lenses are extra. On which note, I'm currently using: Sigma 17-70mm (can't recommend it enough over the kit lens) Sigma 55-200mm (nice and compact for those extra reach moments) Tokina 80-400mm (monster for photographing aircraft from the ground)
Anna :rose: Tech Blog | Visual Lint "Why would anyone prefer to wield a weapon that takes both hands at once, when they could use a lighter (and obviously superior) weapon that allows you to wield multiple ones at a time, and thus supports multi-paradigm carnage?"
-
I agree on its usability part, but I have a problem with how much is "little bit". I could buy the 550D at 40000 INR, but the 600D costs approximately 10000 INR more, and it just has that articulated screen as an "improvement" over the 550D. The dpreview tests also reveal that the 550D actually outperforms the 600D in certain tests. These factors make me think that there's no value for the additional money I'll have to pay. I also think that the number of overhead and low angle shots will be really less in number that I can stretch up or sit down a little bit if required in such occasions. But then, it's just me thinking that way. :)
"Real men drive manual transmission" - Rajesh.
-
It might not be worth the cost, but the limits of what you can do with a tool are largely defined by edge cases; not typical usage.
3x12=36 2x12=24 1x12=12 0x12=18
That's subjective, and I'm more worried about the typical usage.
"Real men drive manual transmission" - Rajesh.
