[mind]

i am going to spend 500 GBP and i came across this camera, but i dunno if i wanna buy it because i saw a nikon with a 24.2 MP camera for the same price, i am not a profesional photographer its just for memories and so please can some one advice me on what to buy, thanks in advance.

[mind]

(Original post by chloeamy)
I have just bought the Nikon, the 24.2MP. Got it a week or so ago and it's AMAZING! It's lightweight in comparison to other cameras I've had in the past. I'm not a huge fan of Canon.

so do you recommend it for video taking as well as photos and how hard is it to use and do you think it is suitable for a beginner in a DSLR area

[mind]

(Original post by chloeamy)
It's brilliant for capturing video (full HD 1080). I prefer using Nikon. Definately suitable for a beginner. I have advised friends, who want to get into photography or simply want to just take pictures, to get this camera. For the price it is certainly a bargain.

one final question is it worth getting the camera with a lens or without?

[DanBrwn]

(Original post by chloeamy)
I'm not a huge fan of Canon.

Considering you only just got a D3200 Im guessing you have little experience with most DSLR's. Why is it you are not a huge fan of Canon? Its not because you have a Nikon by any chance is it?

Anyway. The D3200 is a better camera, but you probably wont notice a difference. Their both great performers for their range. You'll miss out on the lenses that Canon make but this wont really be a problem if you are just using it for memories and such! It may start to be a pain if you progress though. Having actually used both Canon and Nikon extensively I can say that they are both ergonomic and even though different, the buttons are placed well on both.

Best advice is, get to the shop. Try them out. Nothing will sway your decision more than this

Good luck!

[DanBrwn]

(Original post by chloeamy)
My Dad has been a photographer for forty years so I've picked up 'this 'n' that'off him. Only recently I have really gained a real interest in photography.

As for not being a fan of Canon....I had one when I was sixteen, friends have got them and my Dad, so from that I think I can make a comparison?

Glad you agree on getting the Nikon.

Didn't agree, told her to try them out herself

Its impossible to tell which camera someone will like more, really. Telling someone to get something because you like it better is... Illogical at best

[katehlouise]

I would get to a shop and try some cameras out... I went when buying my first DSLR, and when I held the Nikon, it just wasn't comfortable in my hands - too bulky, and the buttons were awkward for me. The Canon however was a great fit. Definitely go test them before buying. Most places will let you hold the camera.

[HughTFall]

My friend used Canon EOS 600D on her job as a photographer for years. She was satisfied with its performance. However, I'm not telling you that it is the best of the rest. Actually, I wasn't able to try using that one because I am presently using Nikon camera which I find it comfortable.

[hypercaine.]

I switched from Nikon to Canon because I wanted the greater flexibility of lenses, the Nikon I had meant I had to buy lenses with inbuilt AF which made them expensive (as they are newer) and I didnt have the money to keep spending a few hundred £ on lenses.

If youre not going to be switching lenses and actually going into the real photography stuff id be willing to suggest the Nikon 1 or Sony NEX (never used either but ive read good stuff about them, the Sony specifically)

[evening sunrise]

My version of what to consider when deciding between screwdrive and modern lenses, which might influence which body you buy as your first DSLR, not only in terms of in body motor or not but also in body stabilisation or not.

Make sure you buy the right camera from which ever manufacturer.

Buying one and then getting rid of it and any lens(es) you have to switch brands is a cost that can be avoided by making the correct investment in the first place.

Screwdrive lenses make an interesting contribution to any video sound track......

Make sure the body you buy has an in body motor with sufficient oomph, rather than just playing lip service to the concept. Otherwise you will be a little frustrated at your speed of autofocus compared to your photography buddies using SWM, USM, HSD, HSM lenses.

Later on as you get into photography more do not dismiss leica or zeiss lenses just because they only manual focus on any DSLR.

You will find that for shots that matter (portfolios / competitions) you will tend to manually focus anyway.

There are savings to be had from buying screw drive lenses. For example:

50mm F1.8G SWM = £170 the screw drive 50mm F1.8 AF-D is around £100.

50mm F1.4G SWM = £300 the screw drive 50mm F1.4 Af-D is around £250

85mm F 1.4 G SWM = £ 1250 the 85mm f 1.4 Af-D is around £850.

70-200 F2.8 VR = £1600 the 80-200 f2.8 AF-D is around 800.

So you think you will get into the 800 plus quid bracket for buying lenses whilst still using your first DSLR body then considering an in body motor makes sense even if means spending a few extra hundred on that first body. It also makes a lot sense if a friend, or relative has a large portfolio of the older lenses you can borrow.

If like most folks you will not be spending that kind of money on lenses for several years and a couple of bodies later, then you can forget in body motor.

There are also a lot of very good older primes with screw drive but things to consider are:

buying several primes is more expensive than buying the latest technology zoom with in lens motor and stabilisation.

With Canon and Nikon, for shots such as low light golden hour, or inside churches, temples etc etc with no flash or tripods permitted you are much better off with a 5.6 lens and stablisation than 2.8 or even 1.8 without for handheld. (This is where Sony/Pentax come into their own due to the sensor shift stabilisation as this means even old f 1.4 lenses are stabilised.)

A lens, no matter what its maximum aperture is, is only as fast as the DOF requirement permits it to be and older Canon and Nikon lenses do not have stabilisation.

The digital sensor is very very reflective compared to a piece of film, so the modern lenses have more coatings to control (hopefully eliminating) the ghosting that can result, the older lenses from the film era never had to deal with this.

For many, especially students, the cost of future lenses is a material consideration, if you find you are being influenced by in body motor when considering say Nikon or Canon, so you can save money by buying older lenses then you should really seriously consider Sony or Pentax too, as you get stablisation thrown in on the old lenses as well as autofocus.

[HughTFall]

Nice comment there @hypercaine. But I suggest to switch lenses even if you are using Nikon.

[eimmas]

Just gonna throw this out there - megapixels aren't everything.
Don't base your choice of the Nikon on the fact it has 24.2 MP.

Canon DSLRs have a great reputation for video right now, and obviously there's the bonus of having an AF motor in the camera body (whereas for entry level Nikon bodies this is lacking).

Personally, I went for a D40 back when I was looking for my first DSLR (only 6MP, which was more than enough) because the Nikon felt nicer to hold than the Canon 1000D (my other option at the time). I now have a D5000 since my D40 broke and still love it. I don't really find the lack of AF motor too disruptive either - good quality first party lenses are always going to be more expensive than than second party lenses, but Sigma, Tamron, etc. still produce decent quality lenses for a cheap price than have inbuilt AF motors for using with entry level Nikon bodies...

I can only really repeat what the others have said: try out the cameras before you buy them, you have to be comfortable holding the camera to your face when taking photos.

[hypercaine.]

(Original post by HughTFall)
Nice comment there @hypercaine. But I suggest to switch lenses even if you are using Nikon.

I never suggested otherwise..?

[SillyEddy]

(Original post by eimmas)
Just gonna throw this out there - megapixels aren't everything.
Don't base your choice of the Nikon on the fact it has 24.2 MP.

Canon DSLRs have a great reputation for video right now, and obviously there's the bonus of having an AF motor in the camera body (whereas for entry level Nikon bodies this is lacking).

Personally, I went for a D40 back when I was looking for my first DSLR (only 6MP, which was more than enough) because the Nikon felt nicer to hold than the Canon 1000D (my other option at the time). I now have a D5000 since my D40 broke and still love it. I don't really find the lack of AF motor too disruptive either - good quality first party lenses are always going to be more expensive than than second party lenses, but Sigma, Tamron, etc. still produce decent quality lenses for a cheap price than have inbuilt AF motors for using with entry level Nikon bodies...

I can only really repeat what the others have said: try out the cameras before you buy them, you have to be comfortable holding the camera to your face when taking photos.

Great post!


A high megapixel count does not mean a better camera. It is just the size of the image. It's true that more pixel-dense sensors will generally be better - But that's purely because they're generally much newer. And I would pick a newer 10MP camera over an ancient 20MP camera. The technology inside will just be better.

The D3200's photos will be about a fifth wider, and a third taller. More pixels means bigger files. You probably don't need a high MP count unless you're printing large posters. I can do a 30x20 inch print with great quality from a 10.1MP camera - Viewed from about a metre away. You really don't need 24MP when starting out. 18MP is plenty.



One thing to be aware of (and I really hate Nikon for this, and I've never had a good excuse for them doing this) is that not all lenses will be totally compatible, especially with that camera. It doesn't have certain autofocus motor components, which means many lenses will not autofocus (you'll have to do it manually) or you'll have to buy special lenses. Either way, it cuts down your options. Canon cameras don't use that type of system at all, so the compatibility is far higher.


Both cameras will take "great photos" (depending on your skill!), but Canon generally have the edge when it comes to video quality.

Personally, if you're just starting out, don't look at the 600D or the D3200. Look at the cameras before them (550D or D3100). You'll get very similar quality. Yes, they'll lack a few of the features, but it really won't make a difference. You need a camera to start out, and you might be able to save a few hundred quid by going for the older model. Lenses are far more important. For £100 you could buy the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8, which does not zoom, but it will let you gain some awesome skills working with wide apertures (things look bright, and the backgrounds become incredibly blurred which is cool) and you'll be able to gain skills.


Time is money, so invest in the education side of it. Save money and get an older camera body, and invest in good lenses and learn what you actually need. Currently you're just looking at the numbers, but you need to be understanding the capabilities. It takes time, but slowly add to your collection of equipment if you want to be successful.

My camera is the Canon EOS 1000D. It was the lowest of the low in the Canon ranges when I bought it (I bought it new, quite soon after release, actually). I've spent the past 3 and a half years learning how to use it. I upgraded over time, bought extra equipment (I have 4 lenses, and regularly use 2 of them), flash guns, camera straps, bags, lighting equipment, etc. I am ready to upgrade and get something nicer... But that's only because I know that I have reached the physical limitations of the camera. I know what I need to take my work further, so I can make a more educated purchase. When you start out, start basic. You'll learn what you need, don't guess too soon.

[evening sunrise]

Overall an excellent post.

(Original post by SillyEddy)
Great post!


It's true that more pixel-dense sensors will generally be better -

Incorrect for a given technology generation. For a given technology generation the reverse is true. Which is why the 1DX and D4 are only 18 and 16 mp respectively.

(Original post by SillyEddy)


One thing to be aware of (and I really hate Nikon for this, and I've never had a good excuse for them doing this) is that not all lenses will be totally compatible, especially with that camera. It doesn't have certain autofocus motor components, which means many lenses will not autofocus (you'll have to do it manually) or you'll have to buy special lenses. Either way, it cuts down your options. Canon cameras don't use that type of system at all, so the compatibility is far higher.

But "hatred"...... isnt that a little bit fanboy in terms of language?
Why would you "hate" Nikon for their product strategy if you shoot Canon.....if not weird....it seems unhealthy.

I do not "hate" Canon for making their APS-C image circle lenses unmountable on their fullframe bodies, even though it makes the upgrade to fullframe very very expensive. In fact I do not give a toss, it is not material to me.

No excuses are required from either Canon or Nikon.

What you have are two commercial strategies which both make sense from different perspectives. However the introduction of "entry level" FF bodies (August/September) from both manufacturers will highlight the compatibility issue regarding APS-C lenses v FF bodies and upgrade curves v upgrade cliffs. The lack of in body motor is based upon the market segment where 99% of the individuals buying such bodies will never go beyond a twin kit lens configuration or a single superzoom; this new generation of users like to take video. This new generation also want stabilisation like their old compact or bridge camera had.
Nikon has a reason, the same reason Canon has for its APS-C lens, FF body incompatibility, that reason is market and associated product strategy.

(Original post by SillyEddy)

But that's only because I know that I have reached the physical limitations of the camera. I know what I need to take my work further, so I can make a more educated purchase. When you start out, start basic. You'll learn what you need, don't guess too soon.

Excellent stuff. Unless shooting sports action or using extreme focal lengths for sports or wildlife I have yet to meet an amatuer who has out grown a 1000D or D3000, never mind anything else, although they may have convinced themselves they have as it makes handing the credit card over that little bit easier. Upgrade based upon need rather than desire, you summed it up very well.

What limitations for what type of shooting did you hit ?

I hit the limitations of a D90 very quickly, frame rate too slow, and buffer capacity in RAW only 6/7 images.

[scarletgirl]

The Canon T3i is a perfect START for anyone who is not already familar with the DSLR cameras.

The shutter sounds will need some getting used to, and auto-focus as well.

I carry my camera everywhere I go, the pictures are fantasic. I would recommend getting a really good SD card to keep up with the camera. i.e. the Extreme III 32GB, which is much cheaper on Amazon than anywhere else. There is also the Extreme sold at local Best Buy's 16GB, which was the 1st upgrade from my basic point and shoot SD card class 2.

[eimmas]

(Original post by SillyEddy)
A high megapixel count does not mean a better camera. It is just the size of the image. It's true that more pixel-dense sensors will generally be better - But that's purely because they're generally much newer. And I would pick a newer 10MP camera over an ancient 20MP camera. The technology inside will just be better.

I'm pretty sure I've read somewhere that sometimes too many megapixels can worsen image quality, compared to slightly less pixels on the same size sensor. It's all about getting that happy balance really.

(Original post by SillyEddy)
One thing to be aware of (and I really hate Nikon for this, and I've never had a good excuse for them doing this) is that not all lenses will be totally compatible, especially with that camera. It doesn't have certain autofocus motor components, which means many lenses will not autofocus (you'll have to do it manually) or you'll have to buy special lenses. Either way, it cuts down your options. Canon cameras don't use that type of system at all, so the compatibility is far higher.

Thing is though, you'll find that pretty much all (I think) new Nikon lenses are 'G' lenses, which means they all have an AF motor built in to the lens (as, as far as I'm aware, it helps speed up AF even when the body already has an AF motor) - so if you do invest in new lenses for a Nikon, the lack of AF motor isn't as much of a problem. Granted, they're a little bit more expensive, but obviously they're going to be because they're newer and improved models. It's 'D' lenses that lack an AF motor, and they're older model lenses.

[eimmas]

(Original post by scarletgirl)
I would recommend getting a really good SD card to keep up with the camera. i.e. the Extreme III 32GB, which is much cheaper on Amazon than anywhere else. There is also the Extreme sold at local Best Buy's 16GB, which was the 1st upgrade from my basic point and shoot SD card class 2.

Personally, I'd suggest the OP get a few 8GB cards instead of one massive 32GB card. Let's be honest, who honestly fills up 32GB with photos from a day's shooting?

I rarely get more than a couple of GBs each photo outing I have, and there's only been one occasion I've had to use a second 8GB, and that was when photographing all day at a music festival...

There's also less of a risk of losing a large quantity of photos if the card goes corrupt, because with a smaller capacity you obviously have to backup to a computer more frequently to free up space. If you have a large capacity you might just get lazy and, heaven forbid, the day your card messes up will be the day you hadn't backed up your shots for a while.

[SillyEddy]

(Original post by evening sunrise)
What limitations for what type of shooting did you hit ?

I hit the limitations of a D90 very quickly, frame rate too slow, and buffer capacity in RAW only 6/7 images.

In every day conditions, it's of course absolutely fine.

I did a wedding shoot a while back (free, because I'm no wedding photographer and it was for some friends). I was at max ISO, widest aperture and slowest shutter speed possible. My f/1.8 lens didn't always reach the distance so it was more flexible to use my 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM instead. It was just really dark inside the room where they were getting married. It made things very tricky... All the shots were on the verge of being completely blurred.


Better lenses would help to correct some problems, but the most bang for my buck would come out of changing the body right now. Just an extra couple of stops of usable ISO (my maximum is 1600, but 400-800 rapidly deteriorates) would've made all the difference that day. The new bodies, by all the main manufacturers, are getting great ISO performance at 3200 and higher. Makes sense to upgrade. The weatherproofing also has more to offer... I think the bottom of the pentaprism is slightly murky from a very windy/rainy/muddy day at Oulton Park race track. But that will mean a gradual trend towards L series glass for the weather sealing. A decent 70-200 will see me through though.


To the OP: I'm ready to upgrade because I know why I need to upgrade. I know what sort of photography I'm doing more of (getting into more motorsport, aviation related photography, portraiture, etc). I know which features I actually need now. I just need the funds! Photography is expensive, so learn how to do it as cheaply as you need to.

[HughTFall]

My mom gave me my first camera, Nikon, as a gift on my 19th birthday. That is the beginning of me liking photography.