WatchUSeek Watch Forums banner

1 - 20 of 62 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,173 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
For a year I have only been using a iPhone 5C as my camera for taking pictures and I would like to upgrade to a DSLR and to learn its features.
My budget is under $500 and the two cameras I have the most interest in is the Canon 700D and the Nikon D3300.
Any suggestions on which camera would make for a better first DSLR? Thanks in advance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
980 Posts
Neither.
Spend a little more and buy an Olympus OM-D mirrorless system. More compact, excellent imaging, superb image stabilisation and plenty of scope for expansion as Olympus has a huge system of lenses and accessories available.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,442 Posts
Perhaps the first question to ask is what do you want to take photographs of and what sort of photography are you interested in doing? If you can think about that then you can get some advice on what sort of kit you may want to be looking at. Personally speaking, my feeling is that for starting off the actual camera isn't really so important, in that both Nikon and Canon will have a capable camera for you somewhere. But depending on what sort of photography you are interested in doing (ie wildlife with long lenses, street photography with a smaller more stealthy camera, just the occasional family snapshot, etc) that may have more of an influence on what camera to get. Some people may not like this answer, but possibly even a mirrorless interchangeable lens camera might serve your needs (ie M4/3). So let us know what you are wanting to do with it and we might be able to help you even better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,173 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Thank you guys for the responses so far!
I am thinking of doing some photography that will involve pictures of my watch (obviously) as well as pictures of landscapes.
I can't think of anything else that I take pictures of other than these two so it might be categorized as "General Purpose".
I was also wondering if a DSLR would be suitable for video since I have been thinking of doing video reviews as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,860 Posts
I can give you a few pointers about DSLRs and mirrorless cameras. First of all, neither Nikon or Canon DSLRs have image stabilisation(IS) in the camera. You have to buy lenses with it, but it's not a big deal since almost all of the newer lenses have it. I know Pentax and Sony have IS in the camera, and some of the mirrorless(can't remember which ones)do. If you plan on using older lenses, Nikon has had the same lens mount since 1959, but there are compatibility issues with older lenses. For the most part they'll mount, but with some camera/lens combos, you'll have limited features. With Canon, almost every lens and camera combo from 1987 will be fully compatible. But Canon changed the mount in 1987 so those wonderful old Canon FD manual lenses cannot be mounted. If you plan on using modern lenses only, I'd go Canon(and you're hearing this from a Nikon guy). Why? Because Canon seems to offer more lenses to choose from these days and many times the Canon version of a lens is less $$$ than the Nikon equivilant.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
300 Posts
I'll offer an outside-the-box opinion: Pentax. Now, don't get me wrong, if you have a vast sum of money to spend on cameras, pick Canon or Nikon (or Sony's mirrorless, or Leica, etc). But I did a ton of research and with a limited budget, Pentax seems to offer the best bang for the buck under say, $600. One of the better kit lenses you can buy, a weather resistant body, and in-body stabilization, along with better low-light performance. Plus, if you get a bit antsy with lenses, you can always get an older lens to fit the mount. And if you do mostly landscape, the manual focus older lens will often deliver similar enough performance to an expensive modern lens, often for a fraction of the price and cost.

The one thing Canon and Nikon absolutely have over Pentax is focus speed; Pentax takes half a second, Canikons take .1 second. If you're not shooting sports/fast moving objects, doesn't matter.

Anyway, that's my two cents, and I'm a guy who's had them all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,737 Posts
As a photographer I always recommend Nikon because the lenses are a little cheaper than Canon's lenses. In the end it's always about lenses. The bodies basically do the same thing. Now on to bodies. Always, and I mean always buy a body that has the focusing motor built in. If you buy a cheaper DSLR without the focusing motor you'll spend much more on the lenses with motors such as the AF-S series from Nikon. Your first lens should be one of the 50mm f1.8 lenses. Inexpensive, fast and very sharp. Both Nikon and Canon make a nice 50mm lens. The biggest question you should have later on is lenses. To sum up only buy a body with a built in focus motor, never buy the bodies that rely on a motor in the lens. Feel free to ask my any questions, I've been doing this for 40 years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,737 Posts
I also use an OM-D for travel and DSLR's for work. Both are good systems but always factor in the cost of fast mirrorless lenses. They are very expensive.
Neither.
Spend a little more and buy an Olympus OM-D mirrorless system. More compact, excellent imaging, superb image stabilisation and plenty of scope for expansion as Olympus has a huge system of lenses and accessories available.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
126 Posts
I'm always a Sony fan for some reason..! I'd say start with any of the small mirrorless, they are great for video, lightweight and easy to use, can use pretty much any lens in the world because of the adapters, the more expensive ones now have IS in the body, I think you can't go wrong. An older rx100 migh be a great buy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27 Posts
From what I've read and seen, you can't go wrong with either Nikon or Canon. For me, when I went to buy my first, I compared the two and for me it seemed that the Nikon D50 felt more substantial and better built than the Canon Rebel that was similar in price and features, so I went with Nikon.

As stated above, you really want to spend money on the lens, not the body. Most of the new DSLRs now have video, so that shouldn't be a concern. And me personally, I wouldn't worry about the image stabilization features... if you want to take a really good picture, then your camera will be on a tripod.

Don't be afraid to buy lenses used. Common sense and some research will teach you what lens(es) to buy and what to look out for. The reason I'm a fan of used is that you can buy it, and if you don't like it for whatever reason, you should be able to sell it for close to what you paid (less eBay fees and whatnot). The 50mm as mentioned earlier is a great choice for starting out. Macro photography is an entirely different thing.

Buy something, read about how to shoot, and then just shoot, shoot, shoot! Practice. If you're trying something new like playing with exposures, it may be helpful to write down what you are trying to accomplish before shooting, and then you can compare that to the result.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
102 Posts
Keep in mind that a mirrorless system (or micro 4/3) will take a different kind of lens than traditional Single Lens Reflex. You can adapt almost any lens to a mirrorless camera due to the short flange distance and cheap readily available adapters but not the other way around
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
Just about any dslr will do what your looking for. Like someone said it depends on what type of photography your looking to do. No camera can do it all regardless of price. Lenses are more important but not as important as what you do with the light available or you the one you create. I would personally recommend any of the nikon d7xxx used. If decide to look into Nikon, check uh angry photographer on YouTube you'll save tons of time picking the right lenses and avoiding junk.

Sent from my Z970 using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29,372 Posts
I can give you a few pointers about DSLRs and mirrorless cameras. First of all, neither Nikon or Canon DSLRs have image stabilisation(IS) in the camera. You have to buy lenses with it, but it's not a big deal since almost all of the newer lenses have it. I know Pentax and Sony have IS in the camera, and some of the mirrorless(can't remember which ones)do. If you plan on using older lenses, Nikon has had the same lens mount since 1959, but there are compatibility issues with older lenses. For the most part they'll mount, but with some camera/lens combos, you'll have limited features. With Canon, almost every lens and camera combo from 1987 will be fully compatible. But Canon changed the mount in 1987 so those wonderful old Canon FD manual lenses cannot be mounted. If you plan on using modern lenses only, I'd go Canon(and you're hearing this from a Nikon guy). Why? Because Canon seems to offer more lenses to choose from these days and many times the Canon version of a lens is less $$$ than the Nikon equivilant.
This is really good advice

just also factor in you can do watch photos with kit lenses but if you want to get up close and personal with the watches you'll end up wanting a macro lens.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,442 Posts
This is really good advice

just also factor in you can do watch photos with kit lenses but if you want to get up close and personal with the watches you'll end up wanting a macro lens.
A close up filter can actually be a good inexpensive alternative to get started with. I use a Hoya close up filter on an inexpensive Nikkor 50 mm 1.8 and the results are pretty good when you stop down a little. Of course I'd prefer to have a Macro but for the price of that set up and it's versatility I have no complaints.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,442 Posts
You may want to consider a bridge camera. They are known for their incredible zooms, slr features, and video. Canon sx60, Nikon coolpix 5000 and many more.
Personally I wouldn't really recommend a bridge camera to anyone. They are very limited compared to a DSLR, often have very slow lens speeds and small sensors, don't hold their value at all, and there is no room to grow with the system. In some ways they are the worst of both worlds, they have the larger size of a small DSLR (when compared to mirrorless systems) and they have the limited, inflexible nature of a point and shoot.

I think you'd be better off buying an older entry level DSLR with a kit lens over a bridge camera, personally speaking I'd rather use my decade old Nikon D40 with it's unstabilised 18-55mm than a bridge camera.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
300 Posts
All great advice, and it's tough to go wrong. But the two key factors are what you're looking to do and what the budget is. Start with those considerations, really.

Also, since you're probably trying to get a pretty solid deal, one thing to consider is going through a place like keh.com and pick up some used gear at a pretty nice discount (you can also check out the used sections of adorama and b&h). Most new cameras lose value almost immediately, whereas a four or five year old camera that takes great, great pics can be had for pretty cheap, saving you some money to put towards a nice lens. Plus they usually come with a warranty, or at least the opportunity to return it if you don't like it.
 
1 - 20 of 62 Posts
Top