Which DSLR camera is better?

[vern021]

Hi guys,

 

I've been planning to get into photography for a long while and planning to get into videography down the line. Unfortunately, I don't have any knowledge of what to look at and to consider on choosing a good camera. I've put a poll on the cameras that I'm considering based on some random websites and my budget. It would help a lot to know the reason why you picked the camera in the list. It would help if somebody can suggest or tell me a comprehensive comparison between the choices.

 

Any suggestions and advice would help a lot!

[xQubeZx]

The Canon 800D is the best for you out of them. It has dual pixel af for video which is great (even though it lacks better recording formats it is still a decent choice). It has the newest sensor and you have the option to buy tons of used lenses as it has the EF mount. 

 

No point in buying a 70D, 80D should be the oldest you buy in that series now imo as a new one is suspected to arrive soon and the 70d is old. There are only a few reasons to go for it. 

 

Nikon is a nogo if you wanna do video. They have nothing to compete with in video features. 

[vern021]

9 minutes ago, xQubeZx said:

The Canon 800D is the best for you out of them. It has dual pixel af for video which is great (even though it lacks better recording formats it is still a decent choice). It has the newest sensor and you have the option to buy tons of used lenses as it has the EF mount. 

 

No point in buying a 70D, 80D should be the oldest you buy in that series now imo as a new one is suspected to arrive soon and the 70d is old. There are only a few reasons to go for it. 

 

Nikon is a nogo if you wanna do video. They have nothing to compete with in video features. 

Thanks for the advice! Value-wise, is it better to get the 750D or 800D? The 750D is sold at 779-ish USD here while the 70D is sold at 640-ish USD. I've put the 70D in the poll because I've found it at around 711-ish USD here although there is no warranty and stocks easily come and go. Price isn't a deal-breaker to me but I really want to get the most of what I pay for since I'll be stuck with it for a while. Also, is it better to buy the body alone or buy it as a kit?

[xQubeZx]

1 hour ago, vern021 said:

Thanks for the advice! Value-wise, is it better to get the 750D or 800D? The 750D is sold at 779-ish USD here while the 70D is sold at 640-ish USD. I've put the 70D in the poll because I've found it at around 711-ish USD here although there is no warranty and stocks easily come and go. Price isn't a deal-breaker to me but I really want to get the most of what I pay for since I'll be stuck with it for a while. Also, is it better to buy the body alone or buy it as a kit?

If money isn’t an issue get the 800D at least. Maybe even wait for the 90D if you are interested in getting something that will last. Howver that one will go for maybe around $1000 body only when it is annonced. Otherwise the 80D is also a very solid choice. 

 

The question to buy as a kit or not as kinda hard to answer. If you just want a basic lens you can learn with, then yes a kit is good. However if you have a bit more budget and want a better or special kind of lens there are several options. 

[cc143]

800d is your best choice due to the reasons mentioned above. The 200d is also fine if you need something smaller, but if size is not an issue, then the 800d is definitively better. 

 

The 800d is specwise better than the 70d with the exception of battery life, some additonal weather resistance features and an extra stop of shutter speed. In every other quantifiable way, the 800d is either a on par or better than the 70d (mostly the latter). 

 

Yes, the 800d is a huge upgrade to the 750d and the 800d is definitively worth the additional money. If you can't stretch your budget for the 800d, find a used one, if you are already looking at used, pick up a couple of extra shifts at work, break your piggybank, whatever fits, but the 800d is substantially better. 

[ScunnerDarkly]

What are you wanting to capture and what are you aiming for? Disregarding brands and models for a moment, there is a more fundamental choice you need to make - full-frame or crop-frame.

 

If you're wanting greater options for artistic expression then you must consider going for a full-frame body such as a Canon 5 series (or equivalent from your preferred brand). The larger sensor will allow for a much more cinematic look with a shallow depth-of-field offered by large aperture lenses.

 

This isn't always desired though and there are those (such as documentary-makers) who will need as large a DOF as possible to ensure they capture everything, and they will be better served by a decent Micro Four-Thirds camera such as the Olympus OM-D. The smaller sensor size will also benefit sports and nature videographers by virtue of the crop factor effectively increasing magnification. The crop factor on Micro-Four-Thirds is 2x so a full-frame lens such as a 70-200mm instantly becomes 140-400mm. This could be a big deal for nature and sports videographers on a budget.

 

Finally, don't forget there are brands other than Canon and Nikon. I've a decent Canon system but I'm sorely tempted to pick up a Pentax K1 to play with as they're highly regarded, and there's a world of old/cheap K-mount lenses to choose from.

[cc143]

46 minutes ago, ScunnerDarkly said:

What are you wanting to capture and what are you aiming for? Disregarding brands and models for a moment, there is a more fundamental choice you need to make - full-frame or crop-frame.

 

If you're wanting greater options for artistic expression then you must consider going for a full-frame body such as a Canon 5 series (or equivalent from your preferred brand). The larger sensor will allow for a much more cinematic look with a shallow depth-of-field offered by large aperture lenses.

 

This isn't always desired though and there are those (such as documentary-makers) who will need as large a DOF as possible to ensure they capture everything, and they will be better served by a decent Micro Four-Thirds camera such as the Olympus OM-D. The smaller sensor size will also benefit sports and nature videographers by virtue of the crop factor effectively increasing magnification. The crop factor on Micro-Four-Thirds is 2x so a full-frame lens such as a 70-200mm instantly becomes 140-400mm. This could be a big deal for nature and sports videographers on a budget.

 

Finally, don't forget there are brands other than Canon and Nikon. I've a decent Canon system but I'm sorely tempted to pick up a Pentax K1 to play with as they're highly regarded, and there's a world of old/cheap K-mount lenses to choose from.

I hardly think someone considering a 750d over an 800d can spend the amount necessary for a proper FF camera, a modern FF dslr, even used would cost more than $1000, significantly more. Even the a7ii, the price of which is likely to decrease in the coming weeks will be way above OP's budget before even accounting for lenses and accessories, something that holds for most FF cameras and their accessories. 

 

Also, this is OP's first camera (If I understand correctly), there is no need to move to something more difficult to master and use. The truth is that it remains the case, that an entry level camera is the best way for someone to get their bearings. Even if OP could spend the amounts we are talking about, that doesn't mean they should. As I usually say, let someone get their licence before putting them in a Ferrari!  

 

Also, your 2nd and 3rd paragraphs are very misguided and ill informed, yes, a FF camera allows for more control over depth of field etc., but apsc has come a long way, to the point where it can now compete well enough with FF sensors, and I can see anyone being able to utilise APS-c, or even smaller sensors to a great potential, especially when lenses such as sigma's 18-35mm f/1.8 or 50-100mm f/1.8, or most of fuji's entire lineup. 

 

Additionally, you can stop a lens down to give more depth of field to the image. Also, (and I realise I am being extremely pedantic here), but the crop factor considerations you mention are oversimplified, they need to be for a beginner to somewhat understand what you are on about, but still. 

 

Finally, for a beginner dslr, unfortunately, Canikon are still king in the market, it isn't worth it to consider other manufacturers at this point. As I said earlier, a beginner dslr is still the best platform on which to learn about photography and the Canon and Nikon offerings allow you to do that in a great way, while still giving you a great ecosystem to grow into. Also, don't conflate what an obviously more seasoned photographer (such as your self) would look for in a camera with what a beginner will. Me for instance, if I lost all my gear, depending on my budget would go with a pretty old camera at this point, but I know what I'm doing, what I need and what I want. A beginner doesn't. 

[xQubeZx]

1 hour ago, ScunnerDarkly said:

What are you wanting to capture and what are you aiming for? Disregarding brands and models for a moment, there is a more fundamental choice you need to make - full-frame or crop-frame.

 

If you're wanting greater options for artistic expression then you must consider going for a full-frame body such as a Canon 5 series (or equivalent from your preferred brand). The larger sensor will allow for a much more cinematic look with a shallow depth-of-field offered by large aperture lenses.

 

This isn't always desired though and there are those (such as documentary-makers) who will need as large a DOF as possible to ensure they capture everything, and they will be better served by a decent Micro Four-Thirds camera such as the Olympus OM-D. The smaller sensor size will also benefit sports and nature videographers by virtue of the crop factor effectively increasing magnification. The crop factor on Micro-Four-Thirds is 2x so a full-frame lens such as a 70-200mm instantly becomes 140-400mm. This could be a big deal for nature and sports videographers on a budget.

 

Finally, don't forget there are brands other than Canon and Nikon. I've a decent Canon system but I'm sorely tempted to pick up a Pentax K1 to play with as they're highly regarded, and there's a world of old/cheap K-mount lenses to choose from.

Man you got a lot of missinformation in here..or well questionable advices at least. 

[vern021]

On 3/17/2018 at 1:05 AM, cc143 said:

I hardly think someone considering a 750d over an 800d can spend the amount necessary for a proper FF camera, a modern FF dslr, even used would cost more than $1000, significantly more. Even the a7ii, the price of which is likely to decrease in the coming weeks will be way above OP's budget before even accounting for lenses and accessories, something that holds for most FF cameras and their accessories. 

 

Also, this is OP's first camera (If I understand correctly), there is no need to move to something more difficult to master and use. The truth is that it remains the case, that an entry level camera is the best way for someone to get their bearings. Even if OP could spend the amounts we are talking about, that doesn't mean they should. As I usually say, let someone get their licence before putting them in a Ferrari!  

 

Also, your 2nd and 3rd paragraphs are very misguided and ill informed, yes, a FF camera allows for more control over depth of field etc., but apsc has come a long way, to the point where it can now compete well enough with FF sensors, and I can see anyone being able to utilise APS-c, or even smaller sensors to a great potential, especially when lenses such as sigma's 18-35mm f/1.8 or 50-100mm f/1.8, or most of fuji's entire lineup. 

 

Additionally, you can stop a lens down to give more depth of field to the image. Also, (and I realise I am being extremely pedantic here), but the crop factor considerations you mention are oversimplified, they need to be for a beginner to somewhat understand what you are on about, but still. 

 

Finally, for a beginner dslr, unfortunately, Canikon are still king in the market, it isn't worth it to consider other manufacturers at this point. As I said earlier, a beginner dslr is still the best platform on which to learn about photography and the Canon and Nikon offerings allow you to do that in a great way, while still giving you a great ecosystem to grow into. Also, don't conflate what an obviously more seasoned photographer (such as your self) would look for in a camera with what a beginner will. Me for instance, if I lost all my gear, depending on my budget would go with a pretty old camera at this point, but I know what I'm doing, what I need and what I want. A beginner doesn't. 

Thanks for the advice! Unfortunately, you're right regarding the price since the value of my country's currency is whack for the past few years and prices of cameras here are a bit inflated. And yes, this will be my first camera and as you've mentioned, I don't really want to spend too much on it since it would more likely be just a hobby for the meantime.

 

If I may ask, what type of lenses should I buy for landscape, night shots, portrait, macrolens, and b-roll? I'm leaning on the 800D atm based on @xQubeZx's advice. Any advice or product suggestions would help a lot!

[cc143]

I suggest you look for a used 17-50mm f/2.8 from sigma or tamron, provided you don't want to do video with sound recording, because their AF motors are sort of noisy. Failing that, get a kit lens, 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 and you can judge from there. Whether you go with FF or APS-c glass afterwards, really depends on how serious you will be once you get into it. 

 

The single lens I also recommend people look at when looking at Canon cameras is the 50mm f/1.8 STM, because it is a very versatile focal length, works on FF as well and is dirt cheap considering its quality. Its just under £100. 

 

Other than that, if you find you need a wide angle, you can pick one up when you do, the same with a telephoto. 

[PoorPcGamer]

As a canon t6 user i fell like canon t7i would be the best option 

[mapegl]

I can only tell you what I know from my experience with the 60D (my brother's camera) and 100D (mine). Both are fairly nice, the 60D is definitely a bit stronger that the 100D. 

Personally i love having the option of having to just have a tiny 24mm 2.8 STM pancake lens and thus achieving a really compact setup. However, if I want, I can also get a big lens like a 17-50, or an 18-135 and have a similar experience to the bigger cameras. 

 

What am I getting at with this? Well for me, for the most part, I can take some pretty nice pics despite my 100D basically being a 750D in a smaller body. So you don't need an insanely strong camera just from the start. The 60D is better, but I really don't need anything like that.....yet. Skill should come first, and I started about 9 months ago and I keep learning something new every time I pick my camera up. 

 

I would get the 200D. I love the compactness, and unlike my 100D it now has a flip-out screen, which is so nice for video work. And in addition to that, it even has some wireless connectivity, which is probably nice if you are into instagram etc. 

Only downside I really see when getting either the 100 or 200D is that both use a smaller battery since they are basically downsized versions of the 750D and....well whichever is comparable to the 200D ;-) 

 

On 3/19/2018 at 12:55 PM, cc143 said:

I suggest you look for a used 17-50mm f/2.8 from sigma or tamron, provided you don't want to do video with sound recording, because their AF motors are sort of noisy. Failing that, get a kit lens, 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 and you can judge from there. Whether you go with FF or APS-c glass afterwards, really depends on how serious you will be once you get into it. 

 

The single lens I also recommend people look at when looking at Canon cameras is the 50mm f/1.8 STM, because it is a very versatile focal length, works on FF as well and is dirt cheap considering its quality. Its just under £100. 

 

Other than that, if you find you need a wide angle, you can pick one up when you do, the same with a telephoto. 

I can very highly recommend the Sigma 17-50 2.8. Seems kinda like a go-to for people wanting to get something better than the kit lense and so far I love mine. I only got it about a week ago after selling my kit lense and it is a huge improvement. It is a bit noisy though, so the in-body microphone will most likely pick up that sound.

 

 I also own (as I mentioned above) the 24mm pancake from Canon. It is pretty quiet, fairly quick to autofocus....you don't have to be as far away as with a 50mm (especially considering the crop factor you will get with aps-c).