OT which camera? Canon - EOS Rebel T5 DSLR vs. Nikon - D3200 DSLR

[CL82]

I'm looking to buy a entry level DSLR. Both come with18-55mm and 55-200mm lenses and are identical in price ($499). I remember from a prior thread that pretty much any of the entry cameras in this range are decent. Does anyone have any thought as to why one would be better than the other? Although I'd use them for more, a principal initial interest is taking pictures of HS BB games.

 

[Fishy]

Don't spend much time thinking about it - at an entry level, there's little difference.

If you're looking at this as a start and plan on moving up the ladder, I would advise that you go with Nikon.

I have a bazillion dollars in Canon lenses and SLR/DSLR bodies laying around, but it's pretty clear to me that Nikon has a marked edge in image quality from prosumer levels and up.

 

[Dogbreath2U]

I recently got a compact system camera (with changeable lenses) that (Sony a6000) that was more money than you are looking at there, but much lighter than a dslr and supposedly extremely fast autofocus for action shots. Compact system cameras are called different things like "mirrorless" cameras. The price just came down $100. I got the same type of lenses that you are looking at, but much lighter. Just throwing it out there as it is a relatively new option and one that may be a good choice for many.

 

[A10 fan]

For years it was generally thought that Canon was better at the entry level, and at the very top, while Nikon had better mid level models. Don't know if that's still true though.

 

[Catsailor]

Choose a tool based on what you want to accomplish.

My advise as a 30 yr pro shooter and photo educator....
Don't waste your money on entry level camera or kit lenses especially shooting sports (that is a specific application) ... they are slow and frustrating to use. Your success rate would be limited.

You want a decent buffer, two command dials (one for shutter one for aperture) to properly shoot in manual. You also want good high ISO performance (for indoor sports), fast focus, adequate buffer (burst rate) and the fastest glass you can afford. You can research all at www.dpreview.com

Saving money on anything that doesn't do the job is not money well spent and obviously no bargin.

Both Nikon and Canon, make great gear: cameras,lenses image quality are similar. Some models (cameras lenses) perform better than others for specific tasks/conditions.

To generalize in saying one brand is better than the other is naive and ill informed. Also historically when one brand has superiority in a particular area the other brand soon catches up and/or leap frogs as the leader. EG auto focus, High ISO, metering, sensor quality.

One area that's often overlooked is ease of use with respect to ergonomics & menu navigation that is arguably subjective.

All that said I shoot Nikon, not entry level and for a variety of reasons. I have friends that shoot Canon with excellent results.

You could also take a class (community college or workshop) before you purchase to make a better educated decision and do handle the cameras because each has a different feel.

If you found this helpful and have further questions PM me. If not ignore.

 

[CL82]

I recently got a compact system camera (with changeable lenses) that (Sony a6000) that was more money than you are looking at there, but much lighter than a dslr and supposedly extremely fast autofocus for action shots. Compact system cameras are called different things like "mirrorless" cameras. The price just came down $100. I got the same type of lenses that you are looking at, but much lighter. Just throwing it out there as it is a relatively new option and one that may be a good choice for many.

One thing I've wonder about is why digital cameras need a SLR system. It made sense on film cameras as the mirror would pop up to expose the film, but it seems like an anachronism for a digital camera. Other the WYSIWYG of looking through the lens is there a benefit?

Regardless, DSLR seem like the most bang for the buck, for me. I'm not sure how immersed I'll get in this hobby once my kid is out of school. I used to enjoy it back in the day before aperture and shutter speed were automated. Even with my existing camera I often override or force these settings.

 

[Fishy]

One thing I've wonder about is why digital cameras need a SLR system. It made sense on film cameras as the mirror would pop up to expose the film, but it seems like an anachronism for a digital camera. Other the WYSIWYG of looking through the lens is there a benefit?

Regardless, DSLR seem like the most bang for the buck, for me. I'm not sure how immersed I'll get in this hobby once my kid is out of school. I used to enjoy it back in the day before aperture and shutter speed were automated. Even with my existing camera I often override or force these settings.

The ultimate answer is that there will soon be no need for the mirror and prism of the DSLR.

I bought the Canon M a while back because it accepts EOS lenses with an adapter....the autofocus system is unforgivably bad, but mirrorless cameras are getting better and better with the hybrid autofocus systems. I'm looking forward to the day when I can ditch the DSLR brick entirely.

 

[MexicoHusky]

Get a bow tie camera. Totally bad @$$

 

[A10 fan]

The ultimate answer is that there will soon be no need for the mirror and prism of the DSLR.

I bought the Canon M a while back because it accepts EOS lenses with an adapter....the autofocus system is unforgivably bad, but mirrorless cameras are getting better and better with the hybrid autofocus systems. I'm looking forward to the day when I can ditch the DSLR brick entirely.

Serious shooters still like to look directly at what they're shooting, not a screen. When screens become the equal of looking through the glass, then mirrors will disappear, not until.

 

[Dove]

Others can be of more use but that T5 Canon for $499 could be a refurbished camera.

 

[progrocks]

If you just want better photos than a point and shoot, I love what I get from my Sony mirror less. It fits in the wife's purse and does a great job
Every time. First time I feel like a camera purchase was not wasted money.

 

[CL82]

Just a FYI this is the best comparison I found
LINK

FWIW Fishy impression of an edge in image quality in the Nikon is supported by few facts:

Higher resolution -1176x784px vs 831x554px

High pixel density - 471ppi vs 333ppi

Larger sensor - 15.4 x 23.2mm vs 14.7 x 22mm

I'm leaning that way even though the Canon has a slightly longer lens.
55-200mm vs 75-300mm

 

[jleves]

Larger sensor - 15.4 x 23.2mm vs 14.7 x 22mm

I'm leaning that way even though the Canon has a slightly longer lens.
55-200mm vs 75-300mm

You probably shouldn't base your purchase on the packaged lens. They are packaged as marketing, not necessarily on quality. If you start getting really serious about shooting, you'll probably end up dumping that lens for higher quality lenses pretty quickly. Also, as they are not full frame, you'll be really limited with 75mm on the low end unless it also comes with an 18-xx where xx is somewhere around 75mm. If that's the only lens, you'll be zooming in on everything even at the low end which is a full frame equivalent of 120mm.

I did a bunch of research before I purchased my camera a while back and the bottom line, find the shooter you want and buy the lenses separately instead of in the package. You'll pay more up front, but you won't pay for a crappy kit lens you stop using. And make sure you are aware of the crop factor and figure your lenses appropriately.

 

[CL82]

You probably shouldn't base your purchase on the packaged lens. They are packaged as marketing, not necessarily on quality. If you start getting really serious about shooting, you'll probably end up dumping that lens for higher quality lenses pretty quickly. Also, as they are not full frame, you'll be really limited with 75mm on the low end unless it also comes with an 18-xx where xx is somewhere around 75mm. If that's the only lens, you'll be zooming in on everything even at the low end which is a full frame equivalent of 120mm.

I did a bunch of research before I purchased my camera a while back and the bottom line, find the shooter you want and buy the lenses separately instead of in the package. You'll pay more up front, but you won't pay for a crappy kit lens you stop using. And make sure you are aware of the crop factor and figure your lenses appropriately.

Thanks jleves. Both cameras come with 18-55mm as well at their long lenses. I am just trying to find a way to distinguish between two equivalent camera packages.

I understand that I'd likely end up with a better a product by avoiding the package and buying better quality, I'm not sure that I'll stick with it as a hobby or invest a lot of time it once my kid's out of school.

 

[huskiesouth]

FWIW

In my experience and that of my son who does a lot of high-level live concert shoots, there is clearly one difference between these two manufacturers, that is customer service and warranty work. In our experience Nikon is the poster child of a company that makes a high-quality product and refuses to stand behind anything that goes wrong - Canon has been the exact opposite.