Upgrade from Rebel T3?

[Jackgamer91]

I am into casual photography and I was wondering if it is worth it to upgrade from the T3 I am currently using to a Nikon D3200 or D3300 for $500? I've been told they are roughly the same level (being entry-level)

The T3 was my first DSLR camera and I feel like I've learned the ropes enough to move on to something better but I don't feel like blowing $800-900.

I'm also considering the D5200 and D5300 which come in at $600.

[SeanAngelo]

i'd get the D5300.

 

another option would be a D7000 but i think thats over your budget.

[Flight1sim]

i'd get the D5300.

 

another option would be a D7000 but i think thats over your budget.

*cough* or the t5i...

@OP

jk, the D5300 is a slightly better camera in terms of photos, but for video, T5i all the way

[Jackgamer91]

The D5200 looks like a good compromise. It's mid-level and since it's last gen the prices on it are dropped.  

 

Anyone here can speak of D5200 vs. D3300?

[.spider.]

Not worth it.

Buying lenses will give you a bigger benefit.

[Sousuke]

Not worth it.

Buying lenses will give you a bigger benefit.

 

Upgrading the glass that you have is a much better option unless there is a killer feature on the body that you absolutely need.

 

The only time you should think of upgrading the body is if you want to go to a full frame camera. I use a D3200 and with the right glass it will kill anything (Apart from full frame camera) with the stock kit lens.

 

I'd say keep the camera that you have currently and give it some better glass.

[Napper198]

Upgrading the glass that you have is a much better option unless there is a killer feature on the body that you absolutely need.

 

The only time you should think of upgrading the body is if you want to go to a full frame camera. I use a D3200 and with the right glass it will kill anything (Apart from full frame camera) with the stock kit lens.

 

I'd say keep the camera that you have currently and give it some better glass.

 

As Fro said it once or twice:

Glass, glass, glass, glass, glass times 27

 

something like a 50mm f/ 1.8 or a 17-55mm f/ 2.8 IS can even a Rebel (yes, the original with 6 megapixels) look amazing.

It all comes down to the amount of light you can capture, and the 2 stops advantage a 1.8 lens gives you over a 3.5 lens would let you capture so much more light that even the ISO advatage of a 5D Mark III would melt away.

[Sousuke]

As Fro said it once or twice:

Glass, glass, glass, glass, glass times 27

 

something like a 50mm f/ 1.8 or a 17-55mm f/ 2.8 IS can even a Rebel (yes, the original with 6 megapixels) look amazing.

It all comes down to the amount of light you can capture, and the 2 stops advantage a 1.8 lens gives you over a 3.5 lens would let you capture so much more light that even the ISO advatage of a 5D Mark III would melt away.

 

I mean to take it down to a level non camera but tech heads will understand is this. Why do you think Apple always gets awesome photos with the iPhone? Optics is the answer. Sure the sensor at that size matters allot but its the optics which make the biggest difference. 

 

Nokia on the other hand worked on both the lens and sensor which is why they are considered to be the best in smartphone photography. 

 

Megapixels =/= better photos. Sure a lack of Megapixels will cause the sharpness of a photo to be poor but anything after 8-10 Megapixels wouldn't make a large amount of difference to normal photography which you slap on facebook or print out on normal size photo paper. Go for the larger megapixel count if your going to be doing banners, large pictures or major graphical design on the computer.

 

Its like the Megahertz myth back when that was an issue. (More on that in the spoiler below, sure its an Apple video but shows it quite well).

The Specs in this will make you laugh a little bit.

 

Anyway I digress, Your lenses will always contribute the largest difference in your photo quality. Having a 4 year old camera with alot of lenses will kick a brand new camera with the kit lens.

[Kereplaz]

Its weird that you would like to go to nikon after using a canon. I tried 5300 and its NOTHING like a t3i. And ive been using 450d (way older than your 600d) but already bought 4 different lenses. What lenses do you have now? If you have kit lens only you should definitely buy new lenses not cameras. 50 1.8 is a must. Others according to what photos you take. Also lenses last way longer so you can and will upgrade the body later.

[X-Mass]

I was watching this http://youtu.be/eCqvNNRK0bY?t=7m and it might inform your opinions - the skinny is that these days Nikon is rebadged sony sensors.

Also you might want to listen from this point onwards as well  http://youtu.be/eCqvNNRK0bY?t=16m30s

the skinny is that the 550D 600D 650D 700D 60D 7D are all the same sensor, so other than changes to digic processors which presumably means that the onboard firmware could do more

the 550-700, 60 & &D inclusive are the same camera! with different pricing!

for what its worth - unless you need to be able to shoot in commercial pictures in the dark of northern climbs such as Edinburgh in mid winter or your desperate for arty shallow depth of field pictures then weight and cost are likely to be bigger issues and unless you want to shoot 4K video have a look at:

the panasonic GH2 for $400 on ebay and spend $10 on a EOS to M43 ring converter so you can use your existing glass

OK the noise floor on the GH2 isn't as good as a 5Dm3 but unless your shooting pro and/or want to burn money then you get a lot of camera for not a lot besides with m43 you can use metabones to convert full frame lemses and get a stop back so if you have a canon L glass prime rated at 1.4 with a metabones its a 0.4 or less

my2p

[handymanshandle]

Frankly the T5i I think is probably a better camera in general but imho for customization I really adore the K-50 still not sure of performance.