|
|
Welcome, Anonymous (Profile, Private Messages)
Having trouble signing into the forums? Please [ logout ] and log back in.
 Log in
| Author |
Message |
Joined: 09 May 2012
Posts: 83
Location: too many
|
Posted: Sun May 27, 2012 4:38 am
|  |
Hi All
Planning to move to SLR ( Purpose is mostly as a hobby, my only proffessional use would be for Stock )
So, a bit confused about which one to go for
it is either the Nikon D3100 vs canon 1100D
(this is with in my budget )
OR
the Nikon D5100 vs Canon 550D
(this is a bit above my budget ) |
|
supertramp
Joined: 29 May 2005
Posts: 4518
Location: I don't know, I'm guessing. :)
|
|
Posted: Sun May 27, 2012 7:23 am
| |
Being a Canon guy, I'd push the Canons.
But...
Best thing for you to do is go to a store and hold the cameras in your hands. Get the one that feels right; where you're comfortable getting at the controls.
Then go out and get the best glass you can afford. |
|
jeffbanke
Joined: 18 Dec 2005
Posts: 17467
Location: www.xlr8photo.com, The real California
|
|
Posted: Sun May 27, 2012 9:43 am
| |
Neither they are low end products |
|
camdoc3
Joined: 30 Jun 2006
Posts: 1547
Location: trinidadimages.com
|
|
Posted: Sun May 27, 2012 9:59 am
| |
| jeffbanke wrote: | | Neither they are low end products |
+1 |
|
maxim1110
Joined: 09 Dec 2010
Posts: 291
Location: Nijmegen, the Netherlands
|
|
Posted: Sun May 27, 2012 3:06 pm
| |
| jeffbanke wrote: | | Neither they are low end products |
Which is a useless answer. Judging from his post, he doesn't have an SLR just jet, so moving straight to, for example, the Nikon D800 which sells for (if I'm not mistaken) some $2500, would be a bit over the top. Furthermore, indeed, they are low end products, at least, the most low end both brands sell. But apparently that's what he's looking for.
I have to say I have little experience with Canon, but I do happen to own the Nikon D3100. It is my first (and so far only) SLR, and really worth the price. Nikon has recently announced the D3200, which might be worth considering. On the other hand, I don't know what your budget is, but the D3200 is somewhat more expensive. All I can say about the D3100 is that it's really worth the money. Especially when you're coming from a point&shoot camera, the D3100 is an excellent SLR to start with.
As I mentioned before, I don't have any experience with Canon, but I think you can trust they make good products. Probably, both Nikon and Canon have their advantages and disadvantages. So I'm just gonna repeat what I've heard another photographer say once: buy what your friends and acquaintances have. That way, you can easily buy second hand lenses and other equipment, and your friends might be able to tell you interesting tips about your camera. |
|
jeffbanke
Joined: 18 Dec 2005
Posts: 17467
Location: www.xlr8photo.com, The real California
|
|
Posted: Sun May 27, 2012 3:22 pm
| |
OK, I already posted a fuller answer on the OP's similar post on the Critique forum, but let me repeat myself.
Don't buy any consumer end camera, save your money and go to a Prosumer camera like the D300s, it is built stronger (magnesium body), has better dust prevention (seals), saves TRUE RAW files instead of the compressed RAW files that the 3100 saves, is capable of getting images accepted on SS at ISO 1600, and a myriad of other features that make it an infinitely better camera!
Oh, and since I shoot with a D300, you take the previous persons advice and buy what your freinds and colleagues have - so buy a D300 :-) |
|
maxim1110
Joined: 09 Dec 2010
Posts: 291
Location: Nijmegen, the Netherlands
|
|
Posted: Sun May 27, 2012 3:35 pm
| |
| jeffbanke wrote: | OK, I already posted a fuller answer on the OP's similar post on the Critique forum, but let me repeat myself.
Don't buy any consumer end camera, save your money and go to a Prosumer camera like the D300s, it is built stronger (magnesium body), has better dust prevention (seals), saves TRUE RAW files instead of the compressed RAW files that the 3100 saves, is capable of getting images accepted on SS at ISO 1600, and a myriad of other features that make it an infinitely better camera!
Oh, and since I shoot with a D300, you take the previous persons advice and buy what your freinds and colleagues have - so buy a D300 :-) |
It depends what you're buying a camera for. I'm a young passionate landscape photographer, and I bought my D3100 before I had even heard of microstock. That being said, it works quite well for that. I could've saved longer to get myself a D7000 for example, but that would've taken me at least another year at that age. Getting a D300, D800, D7000 or whatever camera is great, but some people (like myself) are just financially limited.
Oh, and the D3100 is perfectly capable of shooting photos at ISO1600 that get accepted to stock. In that it's infinitely better than my dad's old (high end) D200.
I don't know what his budget is like, and how easy it is for him to save up for a prosumer end camera. For me it would've meant I was condemned to using a cheap point&shoot for probably another year, which wasn't worth it for me, considering the D3100 is simply a fine camera. |
|
robhainer
Joined: 03 May 2010
Posts: 2746
Location: Dallas, GA, USA
|
|
Posted: Sun May 27, 2012 10:07 pm
| |
D3100 has a newer, improved sensor over the D300. You can get fine stock photos out of that camera. I just don't like it because it doesn't have all the extras. |
|
rinder99
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 39223
Location: Contact www.rinderart.com/Books and Workshops www.rindersmithphotography.com Youtube/rinder
|
|
Posted: Mon May 28, 2012 1:38 am
| |
| maxim1110 wrote: | | jeffbanke wrote: | OK, I already posted a fuller answer on the OP's similar post on the Critique forum, but let me repeat myself.
Don't buy any consumer end camera, save your money and go to a Prosumer camera like the D300s, it is built stronger (magnesium body), has better dust prevention (seals), saves TRUE RAW files instead of the compressed RAW files that the 3100 saves, is capable of getting images accepted on SS at ISO 1600, and a myriad of other features that make it an infinitely better camera!
Oh, and since I shoot with a D300, you take the previous persons advice and buy what your freinds and colleagues have - so buy a D300 :-) |
It depends what you're buying a camera for. I'm a young passionate landscape photographer, and I bought my D3100 before I had even heard of microstock. That being said, it works quite well for that. I could've saved longer to get myself a D7000 for example, but that would've taken me at least another year at that age. Getting a D300, D800, D7000 or whatever camera is great, but some people (like myself) are just financially limited.
Oh, and the D3100 is perfectly capable of shooting photos at ISO1600 that get accepted to stock. In that it's infinitely better than my dad's old (high end) D200.
I don't know what his budget is like, and how easy it is for him to save up for a prosumer end camera. For me it would've meant I was condemned to using a cheap point&shoot for probably another year, which wasn't worth it for me, considering the D3100 is simply a fine camera. |
My pardner Dave uses the D200 for 99% of his port. Ain't about the camera Guys. Never was. It's about Talent. You Miss that part it won't matter.
D200 Images below. learn to shoot like this and it won't matter.Nothing is "Over the top" Unless you use it to make a living or just a hobby snapshooter.I could use a D3100 and kill Ya if I had to. You couldn't use my D800 and do better. Thats the difference. I wouldn't recommend things to people that cost money and things that you haven't tried or shot yourself. it's not fair.
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-uhhltdave5.html
Last edited by rinder99 on Mon May 28, 2012 9:12 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
kenny123
Joined: 13 Aug 2005
Posts: 6079
Location: Masterton,Wairarapa, New Zealand
|
|
Posted: Mon May 28, 2012 4:21 am
| |
I personally would like a digital dslr,with just the basics of a 35mm film slr-Manual focusing, no built-in meter, no menus -just a dial with iso/white balance settings,-no auto setting,and just a 3" LCD screen on the back-That would be a photographer's camera. |
|
rinder99
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 39223
Location: Contact www.rinderart.com/Books and Workshops www.rindersmithphotography.com Youtube/rinder
|
|
Posted: Mon May 28, 2012 9:14 am
| |
| kenny123 wrote: | | I personally would like a digital dslr,with just the basics of a 35mm film slr-Manual focusing, no built-in meter, no menus -just a dial with iso/white balance settings,-no auto setting,and just a 3" LCD screen on the back-That would be a photographer's camera. |
That would be a dream Camera for me.Add in Jpg and raw and rangefinder focusing also Prophoto Profile and Im there.Would love a built in Strobe transmitter also. |
|
chinchoi
Joined: 26 Apr 2010
Posts: 982
Location: Kuala Lumpur, MY or birdyfoto.blogspot.com
|
|
Posted: Mon May 28, 2012 12:13 pm
| |
Many newbie doesn't see the old timer point of view. There's no right or wrong in this situation, both are correct....so, just buy it, use it, outgrow it, then upgrade...
everybody need an upgrade at least once !!! LOL |
|
rinder99
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 39223
Location: Contact www.rinderart.com/Books and Workshops www.rindersmithphotography.com Youtube/rinder
|
|
Posted: Mon May 28, 2012 4:20 pm
| |
I switched full time to digital in 1999 hence rinder99. Went through a bunch of cameras. |
|
jeffbanke
Joined: 18 Dec 2005
Posts: 17467
Location: www.xlr8photo.com, The real California
|
|
Posted: Wed May 30, 2012 12:11 am
| |
| chinchoi wrote: | Many newbie doesn't see the old timer point of view. There's no right or wrong in this situation, both are correct....so, just buy it, use it, outgrow it, then upgrade...
everybody need an upgrade at least once !!! LOL |
Only once? :-)
I am on my third LOL! |
|
| |
|
  |
Page 1 of 1
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
|
Shutterstock Forum for Contributors
|
