Wich dslr should i get ?

[HiImYann]

So I'm really looking to get a dslr instead of my iPhone X camera and i don't who's the best for me between the 80D and the 750D.

I'm not gonna dot a lot of video so I think the 750D is better for me but I don't know if he's "futurproof".

 

And for the lenses I really dont know, I like to take portrait but I really want a landscape lens. I think sigma 17-50 f/2.8 is a good choice but I don't know if a 50 f/1.8 with a canon 10-18 isn't better.

 

Do you guys have any suggestions for dslr and lenses ? And my budget is somewhat unlimited i'm just gonna save up.

[rubiksolver007]

I have been taking photos with my 650D for 4 years, and let me tell you, the rebel series is still an insanely better better product; both for image quality, customer support, burst speed, and a SUPREMELY larger amount of lenses that are available. Many professional photographers have gripes with the rebel series - and to be clear, it is not a professional grade camera - but it will in fact last you many years and will serve its purpose as a camera that is better than any point and shoot or smartphone camera out there.  I have took photos for numerous clients with my 650D, the quality of those photos is close to that of professional gear. The main difference with an entry level kit and a pro one is that one is that professional gear is easier to use thanks to the fact that is has more controls. Keep in mind that you will not have absolutely everything you will ever need in a camera, but the same applies to computers and the such; and in regards to the lense, just remember that the telephoto lenses are extremely beneficial to use when you can bring a limited amount of gear and you have a limited amount of time. I always recommend a zooming lens when it comes to landscape. It really depends on what kind of landscape you are shooting to decide how far your lens will zoom, but try to ALWAYS stay away from prime lenses when it comes to portraits. but it would be much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much better for you if you just save up 250 bucks and buy yourself a telephoto lense, a prime lense, and a macro lense. This will really open up our horizons for shooting photos. I say this mainly because I too thought I only wanted to shoot landscape photos in the beginning. So i ventured out and bought a telephoto lense and got on with it. But as the months passed, I realized just how many missed opportunities i had from only having one kind of lense. I have listed the two lenses and a camera kit that are best suited for photographer like you, this has basically everything you need for you that will last for years. (also don't fear using refurbished products, you will be using a lot of it if you do get into photography)

 

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01535NNGY/ref=twister_B078LX8C49?_encoding=UTF8&th=1

 

https://www.amazon.com/Canon-75-300mm-Telephoto-Accessories-Pieces/dp/B018WN62NU/ref=sr_1_1_sspa?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1516296191&sr=1-1-spons&keywords=canon+telephoto+lens&psc=1

 

https://www.amazon.com/Canon-Rebel-18-55mm-Deluxe-Bundle/dp/B017T9SN12/ref=sr_1_4?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1516296499&sr=1-4&keywords=canon+t6i+kit

[AkiraDaarkst]

1 hour ago, HiImYann said:

So I'm really looking to get a dslr instead of my iPhone X camera and i don't who's the best for me between the 80D and the 750D.

I'm not gonna dot a lot of video so I think the 750D is better for me but I don't know if he's "futurproof".

 

And for the lenses I really dont know, I like to take portrait but I really want a landscape lens. I think sigma 17-50 f/2.8 is a good choice but I don't know if a 50 f/1.8 with a canon 10-18 isn't better.

 

Do you guys have any suggestions for dslr and lenses ? And my budget is somewhat unlimited i'm just gonna save up.

No technology is truly future proof, but if you don’t want to spend money on an new camera system every year or so often, or buy something and only later think it may have been a mistake, my suggestion is to do some more research and figure out how you want to do something.

 

Since you don’t want to focus on video, almost any DSLR or MILC on the market is pretty good.  Some are better than others in their own ways, but they can also cost a lot more.

[HiImYann]

8 minutes ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

No technology is truly future proof, but if you don’t want to spend money on an new camera system every year or so often, or buy something and only later think it may have been a mistake, my suggestion is to do some more research and figure out how you want to do something.

 

That aside, if it’s purely for video that you need a camera, do you think a DSLR is an optimal choice?

I'm not gonna do a lot of video mainly photography

[HiImYann]

22 minutes ago, rubiksolver007 said:

I have been taking photos with my 650D for 4 years, and let me tell you, the rebel series is still an insanely better better product; both for image quality, customer support, burst speed, and a SUPREMELY larger amount of lenses that are available. Many professional photographers have gripes with the rebel series - and to be clear, it is not a professional grade camera - but it will in fact last you many years and will serve its purpose as a camera that is better than any point and shoot or smartphone camera out there.  I have took photos for numerous clients with my 650D, the quality of those photos is close to that of professional gear. The main difference with an entry level kit and a pro one is that one is that professional gear is easier to use thanks to the fact that is has more controls. Keep in mind that you will not have absolutely everything you will ever need in a camera, but the same applies to computers and the such; and in regards to the lense, just remember that the telephoto lenses are extremely beneficial to use when you can bring a limited amount of gear and you have a limited amount of time. I always recommend a zooming lens when it comes to landscape. It really depends on what kind of landscape you are shooting to decide how far your lens will zoom, but try to ALWAYS stay away from prime lenses when it comes to portraits. but it would be much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much better for you if you just save up 250 bucks and buy yourself a telephoto lense, a prime lense, and a macro lense. This will really open up our horizons for shooting photos. I say this mainly because I too thought I only wanted to shoot landscape photos in the beginning. So i ventured out and bought a telephoto lense and got on with it. But as the months passed, I realized just how many missed opportunities i had from only having one kind of lense. I have listed the two lenses and a camera kit that are best suited for photographer like you, this has basically everything you need for you that will last for years. (also don't fear using refurbished products, you will be using a lot of it if you do get into photography)

 

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01535NNGY/ref=twister_B078LX8C49?_encoding=UTF8&th=1

 

https://www.amazon.com/Canon-75-300mm-Telephoto-Accessories-Pieces/dp/B018WN62NU/ref=sr_1_1_sspa?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1516296191&sr=1-1-spons&keywords=canon+telephoto+lens&psc=1

 

https://www.amazon.com/Canon-Rebel-18-55mm-Deluxe-Bundle/dp/B017T9SN12/ref=sr_1_4?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1516296499&sr=1-4&keywords=canon+t6i+kit

Thank you so much for you answer but are you 70-300 for landscape ?
And why shouldn't I get a prime lens ?

[AkiraDaarkst]

7 minutes ago, HiImYann said:

I'm not gonna do a lot of video mainly photography

Refresh the page, I misread your post and thought you wanted to do video.

[rubiksolver007]

Yes, the telephoto lense is supposed to be 70-300, that is the optimum range, if you want some more range then you can get yourself a telephoto tube extender. When I said you shouldn't get a prime lense i meant that would be true if you could only get ONE lense, but if you get all three then you should be fine. The main disadvantages for a prime lense when shooting outdoors is that you usually need a vary large range of zoom in order to get the most optimal photos. For sure you could take any kind of photo with any of the lenses if you REALLY wanted to, but it would not really give you the best results. Another thing I forgot to mention is the software you should use. I recommend using RawTherapee as the photo editing software, and I swear by it. It is completely free, and it gives you absolutely everything that you get from adobe lightroom, and when it comes to a photoshop alternative, then I use GIMP. Although some people can afford the pricey pricetag on adobe products, I just think it is more reasonable to save money where one can do so, and when such AMAZING free alternatives exist, then it would be a sin not to use them.

(P.S. if your computer is slow at loading photos or editing them and other stuff like that, that is because photo editing always takes a long time to load until you get a reasonable gpu and cpu.

(P.P.S. if you have extra memory -2tb or more- on hand, then you should use the RAW file format. the image file is usually 4-5 times larger than JPEG, but it will save an incredible amount of information, which means that you won't lose quality in the image when you edit.)

[HiImYann]

1 hour ago, rubiksolver007 said:

Yes, the telephoto lense is supposed to be 70-300, that is the optimum range, if you want some more range then you can get yourself a telephoto tube extender. When I said you shouldn't get a prime lense i meant that would be true if you could only get ONE lense, but if you get all three then you should be fine. The main disadvantages for a prime lense when shooting outdoors is that you usually need a vary large range of zoom in order to get the most optimal photos. For sure you could take any kind of photo with any of the lenses if you REALLY wanted to, but it would not really give you the best results. Another thing I forgot to mention is the software you should use. I recommend using RawTherapee as the photo editing software, and I swear by it. It is completely free, and it gives you absolutely everything that you get from adobe lightroom, and when it comes to a photoshop alternative, then I use GIMP. Although some people can afford the pricey pricetag on adobe products, I just think it is more reasonable to save money where one can do so, and when such AMAZING free alternatives exist, then it would be a sin not to use them.

(P.S. if your computer is slow at loading photos or editing them and other stuff like that, that is because photo editing always takes a long time to load until you get a reasonable gpu and cpu.

(P.P.S. if you have extra memory -2tb or more- on hand, then you should use the RAW file format. the image file is usually 4-5 times larger than JPEG, but it will save an incredible amount of information, which means that you won't lose quality in the image when you edit.)

But what if I want a wide angle lens ? 

And I think for me at the beginning a 100mm Macro is zoomed enough 

[xQubeZx]

The 80D is a better camera in all ways. However the 750D is not bad. 

 

For lenses I’d buy the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 and an 85 f/1.8 if budget allows. Since you like to take portraits the 85 will be really nice for that and the 18-35 gives you a good amount of versatility for more wide shots but also gives good portraits if you want. 

 

If the budget is low get a kit lens at first and use that too see what kind of lens you might need later as you will learn what you whish you had, wider, longer or faster and so on. 

 

What is your budget really? 

[HiImYann]

12 hours ago, xQubeZx said:

The 80D is a better camera in all ways. However the 750D is not bad. 

 

For lenses I’d buy the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 and an 85 f/1.8 if budget allows. Since you like to take portraits the 85 will be really nice for that and the 18-35 gives you a good amount of versatility for more wide shots but also gives good portraits if you want. 

 

If the budget is low get a kit lens at first and use that too see what kind of lens you might need later as you will learn what you whish you had, wider, longer or faster and so on. 

 

What is your budget really? 

I think 1300-1500 is my maximum budget but if i save up more time maybe i can reach 2000

[xQubeZx]

The 80D with a kit lens is what I would get then. Maybe get the 17-55 f/2.8 instead of the kit lens.

[cc143]

I wouldnt go with an 85mm simply becausr if you factor in the crop factor the 85mm will be too tight. The 50mm f/1.8 STM is a great lens for the price and would serve you well for portraits.

 

As for Landscapes, it really depends, I have the 17-200mm range covered through 3 lenses (on FF) and have needed the entire range over my time shooting landscapes. I believe ultrawide isnt necessary in most situations but mandatory if you shoot cityscapes or interior shots. However, due to distortion etc. I have began using it more sparingly now. The notion that a telephoto isnt viable for landscapes is plainly not true. 

 

I would go for the 17-50, simply because it is a more versatile focal range overall and the constant aperture is more important imo than the extra reach on the wide end for a beginner, unless you tend to shoot in tight spaces. 

 

As far as the body is concerned, why not the 800d? I assume it is in your price rabge since the 80d is actually more expensive and it is overall a better all rounder imo. The newer processor and focusing system will make it worth it over the 750d and it jas size advantages over the 800d and actually a newer processor, which could make it marginally better for noise rwndition and processing, though not dramatically so. 

 

Another option is the d5600 from nikon, although, honestly, at that point something from the d7xxx series, even used with an in body AF motor will really open up your options as far as using older d series glass is concerned. Give me some time to look at pricing from a pc and I might be able to give you a better option even if you state a clear budget and purchase location.

[HiImYann]

3 hours ago, cc143 said:

I wouldnt go with an 85mm simply becausr if you factor in the crop factor the 85mm will be too tight. The 50mm f/1.8 STM is a great lens for the price and would serve you well for portraits.

 

As for Landscapes, it really depends, I have the 17-200mm range covered through 3 lenses (on FF) and have needed the entire range over my time shooting landscapes. I believe ultrawide isnt necessary in most situations but mandatory if you shoot cityscapes or interior shots. However, due to distortion etc. I have began using it more sparingly now. The notion that a telephoto isnt viable for landscapes is plainly not true. 

 

I would go for the 17-50, simply because it is a more versatile focal range overall and the constant aperture is more important imo than the extra reach on the wide end for a beginner, unless you tend to shoot in tight spaces. 

 

As far as the body is concerned, why not the 800d? I assume it is in your price rabge since the 80d is actually more expensive and it is overall a better all rounder imo. The newer processor and focusing system will make it worth it over the 750d and it jas size advantages over the 800d and actually a newer processor, which could make it marginally better for noise rwndition and processing, though not dramatically so. 

 

Another option is the d5600 from nikon, although, honestly, at that point something from the d7xxx series, even used with an in body AF motor will really open up your options as far as using older d series glass is concerned. Give me some time to look at pricing from a pc and I might be able to give you a better option even if you state a clear budget and purchase location.

Isnt the sigma 18-35 1.8 with a 50mm 1.8 better ? Maybe for some lowlight landscapes 

And what about the 77D ? It really is a tough choice between the 80D 77D And 800D

And thank you for your answer 

[cc143]

2 hours ago, HiImYann said:

Isnt the sigma 18-35 1.8 with a 50mm 1.8 better ? Maybe for some lowlight landscapes 

And what about the 77D ? It really is a tough choice between the 80D 77D And 800D

And thank you for your answer 

The 18-35mm is a great lens optically, however, you will never shoot landscapes at 1.8, but rather f8-f16 depending on the lens, scene etc. Its obviously shaper thaan the 17-50, but its is wider on the tele end, much more expensive and much heavier. So for Landscape photography, Id say you are better off with the 17-50mm. Keep in mind no such thing as a perfect lens or camera exists. 

 

Now in terms of bodies. I am and have been a Canon shooter for the past 13 years. However, I recently came to the realisation that while Id pick a canon system if money was no concern, and bearing in mind many criricisms of Canon I heard bear no value to an actual Canon shooter, if I were to need to replace all my gear tomorrow, Id have to go with nikon for what I do. (which is very similar to what you do). let me elaborate. 

 

An 80d new is about 900£. So is a used d800E. which is a better overall camera for landscapes. Also, the d610 is the fitst FF dslr to be offered new in the UK for under 1000£. Then, youd need to replace the focal ranges we talked about, i.e. 17-50, which is a 24-70 on FF. and you could get a tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 for about 400£ in todays market. This setup is more ideal for landscapes and some light portraiture. You'd also be able to use some old d series lenses, which are pretty cheap used.  

 

Now mind you, I wouldnt recommend going that way if you were either a full beginner who has no idea what they are shooting, or in any way interested in video. Since you arent, Whether you go Canon or Nikon makes no difference im other factors. in which case, a nikon body with an in body AF motor would probably be a better pirchase.

 

If you were to go for an entry level dlsr, the 800d is the way to go. 

 

it is cheaper than the 77d, with little difference between them and features a beginner wouldnt miss, hell, I wouldnt miss them if I hadnt spent 10 years using them. 

 

It has most of the 80ds features, at a lower price, with a new processor etc. It will perform within a +/- margin of the 80d, so the 800d is probably a better purchase for you. 

 

 

[HiImYann]

3 hours ago, cc143 said:

The 18-35mm is a great lens optically, however, you will never shoot landscapes at 1.8, but rather f8-f16 depending on the lens, scene etc. Its obviously shaper thaan the 17-50, but its is wider on the tele end, much more expensive and much heavier. So for Landscape photography, Id say you are better off with the 17-50mm. Keep in mind no such thing as a perfect lens or camera exists. 

 

Now in terms of bodies. I am and have been a Canon shooter for the past 13 years. However, I recently came to the realisation that while Id pick a canon system if money was no concern, and bearing in mind many criricisms of Canon I heard bear no value to an actual Canon shooter, if I were to need to replace all my gear tomorrow, Id have to go with nikon for what I do. (which is very similar to what you do). let me elaborate. 

 

An 80d new is about 900£. So is a used d800E. which is a better overall camera for landscapes. Also, the d610 is the fitst FF dslr to be offered new in the UK for under 1000£. Then, youd need to replace the focal ranges we talked about, i.e. 17-50, which is a 24-70 on FF. and you could get a tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 for about 400£ in todays market. This setup is more ideal for landscapes and some light portraiture. You'd also be able to use some old d series lenses, which are pretty cheap used.  

 

Now mind you, I wouldnt recommend going that way if you were either a full beginner who has no idea what they are shooting, or in any way interested in video. Since you arent, Whether you go Canon or Nikon makes no difference im other factors. in which case, a nikon body with an in body AF motor would probably be a better pirchase.

 

If you were to go for an entry level dlsr, the 800d is the way to go. 

 

it is cheaper than the 77d, with little difference between them and features a beginner wouldnt miss, hell, I wouldnt miss them if I hadnt spent 10 years using them. 

 

It has most of the 80ds features, at a lower price, with a new processor etc. It will perform within a +/- margin of the 80d, so the 800d is probably a better purchase for you. 

 

 

So i think I’m gonna go with a 77D with the 17-50

the 77D instead of the 800D because in Switzerland the 800D is only 11 CHF cheaper. 

And If i can afford a macro lens maybe the 100mm f/2.8 ?

[rubiksolver007]

On 1/18/2018 at 1:57 PM, HiImYann said:

But what if I want a wide angle lens ? 

And I think for me at the beginning a 100mm Macro is zoomed enough 

Sure, you can get a wide angle lense, its just that that is optional, but macro, telephoto, and prime lenses are the bare minimum lenses you need usually.( Thought usually you can get away with just a macro. Also, macro lenses almost always need a lot of zoom, anything between 50 and 200mm maximum zoom is preferred.)

[rubiksolver007]

1 minute ago, HiImYann said:

So i think I’m gonna go with a 77D with the 17-50

the 77D instead of the 800D because in Switzerland the 800D is only 11 CHF cheaper. 

And If i can afford a macro lens maybe the 100mm f/2.8 ?

Yea, go for it, Its just that I got used to the rebel series, but the 77d has a more professional layout, and it has a bit more features, so yea, go for it! And yes, a macro with that kind of zoom and aperture is a very great buy. It's a great camera, and it will serve you well!

[AkiraDaarkst]

8 minutes ago, HiImYann said:

So i think I’m gonna go with a 77D with the 17-50

the 77D instead of the 800D because in Switzerland the 800D is only 11 CHF cheaper. 

And If i can afford a macro lens maybe the 100mm f/2.8 ?

Where do you live in Switzerland?  I know a few places to get good deals and good second hand gear.

[cc143]

1 hour ago, HiImYann said:

So i think I’m gonna go with a 77D with the 17-50

the 77D instead of the 800D because in Switzerland the 800D is only 11 CHF cheaper. 

And If i can afford a macro lens maybe the 100mm f/2.8 ?

If you go with an APS-c camera, I would consider a third party APSC macro lens or Canon's own EF-S 60mm instead. It might also be cheaper than the 100mm f/2.8. 

 

Also look at some of the Nikon gear I mentioned above in the used market. You may be able to get ebay sellers to ship from the UK to switzerland. I do remember finding some used stores when I was last there (although it has been 10 years at this point, Konica Minolta was still making cameras back then;P). 

 

The truth is, you will get what you want and then some with any of the 2 systems you choose to go with. The objective is to get the most out of your money. 

[HiImYann]

11 hours ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

Where do you live in Switzerland?  I know a few places to get good deals and good second hand gear.

In Vaud near Lausanne 

[AkiraDaarkst]

27 minutes ago, HiImYann said:

In Vaud near Lausanne 

I'll assume you know to check prices on Toppreise and Ricardo (where there are people selling used gear).

Digitec sells camera gear.

Sometimes I buy stuff from the Swiss German side of the country because prices can be a bit lower.

Check this store: https://www.lbag.ch

and this store: http://www.profotshop.ch

and this store: https://www.pc-ostschweiz.ch

Migros-Electronics can sometimes have low prices

 

Also check out camera shops (not general electronic shops like Interdiscount or Media Markt) where they have used gear displayed on their storefront.  If you're ever in Geneva check out Photo Verdaine.

 

[HiImYann]

7 hours ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

I'll assume you know to check prices on Toppreise and Ricardo (where there are people selling used gear).

Digitec sells camera gear.

Sometimes I buy stuff from the Swiss German side of the country because prices can be a bit lower.

Check this store: https://www.lbag.ch

and this store: http://www.profotshop.ch

and this store: https://www.pc-ostschweiz.ch

Migros-Electronics can sometimes have low prices

 

Also check out camera shops (not general electronic shops like Interdiscount or Media Markt) where they have used gear displayed on their storefront.  If you're ever in Geneva check out Photo Verdaine.

 

Ok thanks