Railfan Technology > New DSLR recommendations

I sold my Canon EOS Rebel T3i last month, and I want to upgrade to an intermediate DSLR, which I understand cost around $1,000. I thought about another Canon, say the 70D or 80D, but a Nikon looks good too. What experiences good and bad have you had with them? Or is there another brand I should consider?

Thanks for any info you provide!

Tom

Posted from Android

look at the post on 1/9/18 Up grade to an Canon Intermediate DSLR camera

I've always been a Nikon fan but see excellent work come from my Canon friends as well. Mirrorless units, like from Sony, are becoming popular and strong contenders to conventional DSLR's. If you are familiar with the features and handling of a Canon may prefer to stick to that brand. While there are plenty of online review sites to spend time on, if you are lucky enough to still have a camera store nearby go and spend time there as well.

Unless you have a "collection" of Canon high quality L glass, there is no reason to remain in the Canon camp. I say that as a Canon owner of both a D70 and 5D Mk IV.

There are good mirrorless choices as well as DSLRs. Look carefully at Sony and Fujifilm. The mirrorless cameras are smaller and lighter than the traditional DSLR. And since focus is achieved on the sensor, there is no need for 'micro adjustments'. That's a real benefit.

The Canon sensors are not State of the Art, though they are good. Nikon uses Sony sensors which are State of the Art.

The standard for APS-C sensors is 24mp, for 'full frame' it is a minimum of 30mp and the Nikons/Sonys run 36-40 mp.

Spend some time at www.dpreview.com and go thru the reviews and chat groups for various cameras. You'll be pleased with the difference btween what is available now and your previous T3i.

What did you not like about the camera you had? That should be your first question when upgrading.

You might consider the used market. Recently I
picked up a clean used D800, and it blows my socks
off. Still have the D600 (bought new and had
Nikon fix their shutter issue), and gave the old
(also bought used) D300 to my son. I would think that
cameras made after 2012 or so should keep anyone
happy. The sensors have really come of age.

One of the big things to consider is the editor that
you will use. It has to be as important as the
camera.

As far as an actual camera goes, try them out and
see what fits your hands best and which has the
easiest controls for you to use.

Most important? Be there :-)

John.

I went from a Canon T3i to a Canon 80D about a year ago. I find the 80D is a little more cumbersome in selecting various modes I like to use, and has taken some getting used to. The T3i has the useful presets in the dial on top, whereas with the 80D you have to use the screen a little more. I have started to get into the creative modes now, which take a little more time to set up but result in better photos. I took a Canon class recently ($40 through my local camera store) to learn about getting more into the creative modes and that was very useful. Showed me a few things I was doing wrong and was then wondering why I got certain results. Still miss using my old F-1 however - best and most indestructible camera I've ever owned!

I love my Canon 70D...I've had it 4 years. The 7fps frame rate means I don't think i've ever missed a shot, it has a great autofocus hit rate and fantastic image quality.

I have a T3i also but I upgraded to the 70D about 3 years ago. It was quite an improvement. The autofocus is better, better white balance, and I like the contrast on night shots seems to be better. You should be able to get either a 70D or 80D in the price range you are looking for.

You can go with Canon or Nikon and not be sorry either way. As others have mentioned, there are some decent mirrorless cameras in the field now. I saw one of the Sony models while I was at Best Buy last week. It was about half the cost of the DSLR and the specs were better. It was much lighter and smaller. Of course, the product you end up with when you download it to your computer is what matters and I have no idea of how they compare. Dpreview.com usually has some pretty good information.

John

FWIW I have a 5 year old Canon 70D, and am pleased as punch with it. I've cycled through the frame counter twice, so that's what, 20,000 photos plus a bit?

march_hare Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FWIW I have a 5 year old Canon 70D, and am pleased
> as punch with it. I've cycled through the frame
> counter twice, so that's what, 20,000 photos plus
> a bit?

Heh! 20K shots, eh? Is that even 1/10 of the life
of that shutter? I'm wondering if I'll ever use up
a shutter in my lifetime. You've got a good one, so
hang onto it :-) It may need to see the insides of
the 'shop' once in a while just to keep it nimble.

John.

You'll probably retire your 70D to the trophy case before the shutter fails. But, you'll likely want an upgrade with a better sensor.

I have used Nikon cameras since 1992. I chose Nikon over Canon because Nikon's older MF lenses would fit on the AF SLR's of the day. They still work on Nikon DSLRs: FX or DX.

You can get used MF lenses for reasonable cost compared to modern lenses at the same aperture. Older AF lenses are also reasonably priced.

If you go for MF lenses on anything except the very expensive bodies, you will need a light meter.

For used equipment, go to KEH. www.keh.com



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/13/18 17:59 by SOUCF25.

I notice very little mention here about lenses, except as they relate to using old ones on a new body . Bodies are important, don't get me wrong. But the glass in front of a camera usually affects image quality more than the features inside the camera. I've never understood why buyers spend beaucoup bucks on the camera and then relatively little on an aftermarket lens. With all due respect to Sigma,et al, these lenses can be impressive but oftentimes they don't have the working lifespan of glass by one of the camera companies. Bottom line, however, gear is only as good as the person using it.

Merely because an old design lens will "fit" on a newer body doesn't mean that it is a good idea. Lenses that equaled the resolution of those old 10mp sensors will simply produce mediocre results on todays cameras.

And the more mp on the sensor, the better the glass has to be to produce top notch results. And that USUALLY means new glass. Look at the price difference between Canon 100-400mm Mark I lens and the Mark II. I've owned both. The older Mk1 was a good lens, but no match for the 50 mp sensor in the 5DsR. You can find similar variations in Nikon or Sony or Fujifilm.

The Sigma Art series lenses are the equal of Canon. Just look at the testing blogs of Roger Cicala at www.lensrentals.com. Learn MTF graphs, or just carefully read the testings.

While the technique of the photographer is important, top notch results will not flow from obsolete or inferior equipment. Lenses have to be matched to the body, the shooting situation, including the exposure triangle.

I have to disagree about old vs. new lenses (Nikon shooter here so know nothing about Canon). High-quality glass makes any camera better, no matter the age. You can fault old glass for slow or noisy autofocus (or manual focus) and chromatic aberration (corrected by software) in some prime lenses but there are upsides besides the cost differential. I get great color rendition and contrast with my older lenses, and nice separation between the subject and background. Metal and glass are good! Of course, most of the new high-end lenses are excellent - sharp with quick autofocus and vibration reduction, but there is a reason that older zooms like the Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8 and 75-55 f/2.8 (both pre-VR) still command high prices used. Nikon has been pushing "full-frame lenses" because they want to sell new lenses, but that is marketing.

Tom Trent
Eugene, OR