Entry level DSLR recommendation?

[Cy-Fy]

Hi everyone, 

 

lately I've realised that I want to buy a DSLR for when I travel or just want to take much better quality photos than my phone can take. I have relatively good experience with cameras and like to use manual modes, still I am not a professional photographer which is why I am happy with just an entry level DSLR. (Also I have already decided that I prefer DSLR to mirrorless for a number of reasons).

 

The thing is I have been looking a lot at the Canon 200D which seems to be a really good camera for everything and it is especially better for videos than Nikon. I would rarely shoot video but it is good to know that it is there. From Nikon I have been looking at the Nikon d3500 because it seems to be really well priced and has a lot of similar functions. The only thing is it doesn't have a swivel screen and I think this is a huge benefit and something I might use pretty often when not shooting through the view finder. So the only other option from Nikon is now the d5600 but that is now slightly higher in price and would compete more with the 800D from Canon. Then only other thing is that I was initially inclined to get a Nikon because I have heard that they are considerably better than Canon for just photography with sharper images and better overall quality, so I'm not sure how true that is.

 

The dilemma is that the d3500 is right now at a good price with a twin lens kit (18-55mm and 70-300mm, both non VR) while the 200D is about the same price but only with a 18-55mm STM kit lens. The d5600 and 800D are both around the same price which is about £200 more than the first two cameras with 18-55mm kit lenses (don't know if this is worth it to have a better body for many years).

 

My main use is street photography and landscapes and all the other stuff that tourists take pictures of. Is the d3500 worth it with those lenses and now swivel screen? or is 200D a better option (I'm just worried image quality won't be good so is it worth it to just go to a slightly more expensive class of cameras like the d5600 etc).

 

Thank you for your help.

[cc143]

3 hours ago, Cy-Fy said:

Hi everyone, 

 

lately I've realised that I want to buy a DSLR for when I travel or just want to take much better quality photos than my phone can take. I have relatively good experience with cameras and like to use manual modes, still I am not a professional photographer which is why I am happy with just an entry level DSLR. (Also I have already decided that I prefer DSLR to mirrorless for a number of reasons).

 

The thing is I have been looking a lot at the Canon 200D which seems to be a really good camera for everything and it is especially better for videos than Nikon. I would rarely shoot video but it is good to know that it is there. From Nikon I have been looking at the Nikon d3500 because it seems to be really well priced and has a lot of similar functions. The only thing is it doesn't have a swivel screen and I think this is a huge benefit and something I might use pretty often when not shooting through the view finder. So the only other option from Nikon is now the d5600 but that is now slightly higher in price and would compete more with the 800D from Canon. Then only other thing is that I was initially inclined to get a Nikon because I have heard that they are considerably better than Canon for just photography with sharper images and better overall quality, so I'm not sure how true that is.

 

The dilemma is that the d3500 is right now at a good price with a twin lens kit (18-55mm and 70-300mm, both non VR) while the 200D is about the same price but only with a 18-55mm STM kit lens. The d5600 and 800D are both around the same price which is about £200 more than the first two cameras with 18-55mm kit lenses (don't know if this is worth it to have a better body for many years).

 

My main use is street photography and landscapes and all the other stuff that tourists take pictures of. Is the d3500 worth it with those lenses and now swivel screen? or is 200D a better option (I'm just worried image quality won't be good so is it worth it to just go to a slightly more expensive class of cameras like the d5600 etc).

 

Thank you for your help.

I would just go with the 200d or even better 800d, both very capable cameras for the market segment, have great AF systems now as well and allow you to use the mos comprehensive lens system in existence, which in my opinion is much more important over the nikons which can't AF with most of the glass available due to the lack of an in body AF motor. 

 

I would also advise against a 70-300mm non vc, they tend to be bad optically at that price point and vc is actually quite helpful in those longer focal lengths. Also, the 70-300mm is rarely what people tend to need, for your use, something like the 28mm f/1.8 or the 24mm f/2.8 pancake lens would be best for street etc. 

[Cy-Fy]

1 minute ago, cc143 said:

I would just go with the 200d or even better 800d, both very capable cameras for the market segment, have great AF systems now as well and allow you to use the mos comprehensive lens system in existence, which in my opinion is much more important over the nikons which can't AF with most of the glass available due to the lack of an in body AF motor. 

 

I would also advise against a 70-300mm non vc, they tend to be bad optically at that price point and vc is actually quite helpful in those longer focal lengths. Also, the 70-300mm is rarely what people tend to need, for your use, something like the 28mm f/1.8 or the 24mm f/2.8 pancake lens would be best for street etc. 

Thank you very much for your reply. I feel like I agree with you on what you are saying. What about image quality? For some reason when I look at sample images online it seems like the d3500 is consistently better than the 200d but I don't know if you have heard anything. I have also heard about Nikon not using a low pass filter but does this make the images significantly sharper?

 

Thanks!

[cc143]

Other than noise patterns (which vary between processors, sensors etc. and are more subjective tbh) and the difference attributeable to the lack of an AA filter there will be small to no difference. The glass you put in front of it will begin contributing to IQ way before those make a difference anyway, and on the Canon side you simply have more affordable options right now. 

[Cy-Fy]

9 minutes ago, cc143 said:

Other than noise patterns (which vary between processors, sensors etc. and are more subjective tbh) and the difference attributeable to the lack of an AA filter there will be small to no difference. The glass you put in front of it will begin contributing to IQ way before those make a difference anyway, and on the Canon side you simply have more affordable options right now. 

Ok that sounds good. And in terms of specifically the 200d vs the d3500 (I believe the 800d will be outside my budget unless it is really worth it) do you think there is a major advantage for Nikon in any aspect?

 

Thanks!