1200D (T5) or 100D (SL1)

Canon EOS 1200D (EOS Rebel T5 / EOS Kiss X70)

Canon EOS 100D (EOS Rebel SL1)

My local store is doing a major promotion so the 1200D is at $360 and the 100D is $425 (on my country, not USA), prices are just for relative purposes.

Do you think I should get the 100D or the 1200D?

I'm a beginner and for me the important stuff is image quality and features.

Is the image quality difference really big between these 2 cameras? 100D is more expensive, but is it only because of the smaller size or also has better image quality?

thanks

sapot wrote:

Canon EOS 1200D (EOS Rebel T5 / EOS Kiss X70)

Canon EOS 100D (EOS Rebel SL1)

My local store is doing a major promotion so the 1200D is at $360 and the 100D is $425 (on my country, not USA), prices are just for relative purposes.

Do you think I should get the 100D or the 1200D?

I'm a beginner and for me the important stuff is image quality and features.

Is the image quality difference really big between these 2 cameras? 100D is more expensive, but is it only because of the smaller size or also has better image quality?

thanks

Hello.

Image quality difference will propably be ZERO with these two cams. What´s more important is overall functionality, other hardware than sensor, and I believe 100D is worth to buy instead of 1200D. If I´d go Canon DSLR on budget, I´d decide between T3i (600D) or SL1 (100D). Best bang for buck.

sapot wrote:

Canon EOS 1200D (EOS Rebel T5 / EOS Kiss X70)

Canon EOS 100D (EOS Rebel SL1)

My local store is doing a major promotion so the 1200D is at $360 and the 100D is $425 (on my country, not USA), prices are just for relative purposes.

Do you think I should get the 100D or the 1200D?

I'm a beginner and for me the important stuff is image quality and features.

It's simple you want image quality in stills don't buy canon their sensors are behind EVERYONE else.

You want features. don't buy these 2 bodies. they off limited burst speed a poor af system and with the 1200d a poor screen and bad kit lens to boot.

Is the image quality difference really big between these 2 cameras? 100D is more expensive, but is it only because of the smaller size or also has better image quality?

It's becouse of features and better bundled kit lens.

it has a newer processor for better jpegs.(barely)

Higher burst speed(still just 4 fps)

touchscreen with higher resolution(this is a reason to buy this one)

larger viewfinder (only a hair and still pretty small)

Phase detect on the sensor for better af in live view(live view still is still awfully slow)

18-55 is STM lens. This is THE reason to buy the 100d instead. It's sharper has silent autofocus and the front element doesn't rotate. making polerizors totally useless.

thanks

Just take a look at the other brands.

Pentax K500

Nikon D5100

Nikon D3200

Sony A58

All the camera's mentioned above are a LOT better in 1 way or the other.

All have significant better IQ and some offer some excellent features that the canons lack.

I would agree that the SL1 is going to be a better camera long-term.  FWIW, I recently picked up an SL1 as my first dSLR after using a series of P&S cameras.  I have really enjoyed it.  I would point out two major differences from this and the T5 (not to be confused with the T5i).  The SL1 accommodates the new STM lenses that have a stepping motor for focusing which is quieter on video and faster when capturing kids in motion (IMO).

The second, which doesn't seem like a big deal (at least it didn't when I was shopping), but I have used it a ton is the touchscreen.  The T5 does NOT have a touchscreen and I use the one on the SL1 almost exclusively for changing settings during shooting.  It is very responsive and allows me to change settings really quite quickly rather than using a dial to move through adjustments on-screen.

As far as I was concerned, the only reason to go with the T5 was price.  It is cheaper but the feature set seemed more limiting and would hinder my potential growth as a photographer.

Oh yeah, and I have NOT been disappointed.  The SL1 has been great and a real joy to use.

Don't forget one buys into SYSTEM. Deciding for just camera body at a time may not be wise.
--
Why does he do it?

crashpc wrote:

Don't forget one buys into SYSTEM. Deciding for just camera body at a time may not be wise.

Then buy the nikon.

d5100 vs t5

more dynamic range

better high iso in raw

tilty screen

higher res screen

faster burst speed

AF assist lamp(using flash while focussing in low light come on canon.)

1200d vs d5100

nothing worth mentioning.

-- hide signature --

Why does he do it?

BarnET wrote:

crashpc wrote:

Don't forget one buys into SYSTEM. Deciding for just camera body at a time may not be wise.

Then buy the nikon.

d5100 vs t5

more dynamic range

better high iso in raw

tilty screen

higher res screen

faster burst speed

AF assist lamp(using flash while focussing in low light come on canon.)

1200d vs d5100

nothing worth mentioning.

You totally miss the point. If one goes serious, his lenses will be much more expensive than body. Then there is some more accessories binded to the brand. So, now you buy better Nikon body, after Photokina Canon propably beats the crap out of it and then you feel bad. This is not healthy thinking. You might be worse body with every brand at certain time, and it MUST NOT be the decisive part of your photography gear. That´s why I mentioned A SYSTEM. Body is nothing in comparison.

In the meantime it depends on each needs. I considered T5i as overpriced product. I´d rather go T3i/SL1, or D7100/70D. Nothing in between. Not worth in my opinion.

crashpc wrote:

BarnET wrote:

crashpc wrote:

Don't forget one buys into SYSTEM. Deciding for just camera body at a time may not be wise.

Then buy the nikon.

d5100 vs t5

more dynamic range

better high iso in raw

tilty screen

higher res screen

faster burst speed

AF assist lamp(using flash while focussing in low light come on canon.)

1200d vs d5100

nothing worth mentioning.

You totally miss the point. If one goes serious, his lenses will be much more expensive than body. Then there is some more accessories binded to the brand. So, now you buy better Nikon body, after Photokina Canon propably beats the crap out of it and then you feel bad.

No becouse you have bought the best you could at the time of purchase. Given his budget. Canon is unlikely to beat the crap out of anyone. Since the sensor performance is tied to their dated fabs. This will not change in 3 months time.

This is not healthy thinking. You might be worse body with every brand at certain time, and it MUST NOT be the decisive part of your photography gear. That´s why I mentioned A SYSTEM. Body is nothing in comparison.

No everyone will invest a fortune in lenses. Its very hard to beat N k500 with the tammie 17-50 non vc. At it's price. The cheap Tam 70-300mm also benefits the ibis. Getting such a capable starter kit is great.

Besides do your ef-s lenses fit on a 5d?

Another benefit for Nikon.

In the meantime it depends on each needs. I considered T5i as overpriced product. I´d rather go T3i/SL1, or D7100/70D. Nothing in between. Not worth in my opinion.

Besides the 70d no crop canon is wort buying

-- hide signature --

Why does he do it?

BarnET wrote:

crashpc wrote:

BarnET wrote:

crashpc wrote:

Don't forget one buys into SYSTEM. Deciding for just camera body at a time may not be wise.

Then buy the nikon.

d5100 vs t5

more dynamic range

better high iso in raw

tilty screen

higher res screen

faster burst speed

AF assist lamp(using flash while focussing in low light come on canon.)

1200d vs d5100

nothing worth mentioning.

You totally miss the point. If one goes serious, his lenses will be much more expensive than body. Then there is some more accessories binded to the brand. So, now you buy better Nikon body, after Photokina Canon propably beats the crap out of it and then you feel bad.

No becouse you have bought the best you could at the time of purchase. Given his budget. Canon is unlikely to beat the crap out of anyone. Since the sensor performance is tied to their dated fabs. This will not change in 3 months time.

Yes it depends on customers style. I´m not about to jump the ship every two years, so The body brand has pretty no impact on decision. It´s cheaper so I can afford more (lenses and stuff) later.  If he´s about to "consume", then you´re totally right. Who knows...

This is not healthy thinking. You might be worse body with every brand at certain time, and it MUST NOT be the decisive part of your photography gear. That´s why I mentioned A SYSTEM. Body is nothing in comparison.

No everyone will invest a fortune in lenses. Its very hard to beat N k500 with the tammie 17-50 non vc. At it's price. The cheap Tam 70-300mm also benefits the ibis. Getting such a capable starter kit is great.

Of course not everybody. Does not mean NONE. I just offered my angle of view and some would agree. It´s cool you don´t. We have not a clue who´s right. Maybe both.

Besides do your ef-s lenses fit on a 5d?

What does it have to do with anything? Of course not. If I think about upgrading to FF later, I just go with EF lens.

Another benefit for Nikon.

Don´t they produce DX lenses?

In the meantime it depends on each needs. I considered T5i as overpriced product. I´d rather go T3i/SL1, or D7100/70D. Nothing in between. Not worth in my opinion.

Besides the 70d no crop canon is wort buying

Of course. That´s why canon leads in sales

crashpc wrote:

BarnET wrote:

crashpc wrote:

BarnET wrote:

crashpc wrote:

Don't forget one buys into SYSTEM. Deciding for just camera body at a time may not be wise.

Then buy the nikon.

d5100 vs t5

more dynamic range

better high iso in raw

tilty screen

higher res screen

faster burst speed

AF assist lamp(using flash while focussing in low light come on canon.)

1200d vs d5100

nothing worth mentioning.

You totally miss the point. If one goes serious, his lenses will be much more expensive than body. Then there is some more accessories binded to the brand. So, now you buy better Nikon body, after Photokina Canon propably beats the crap out of it and then you feel bad.

No becouse you have bought the best you could at the time of purchase. Given his budget. Canon is unlikely to beat the crap out of anyone. Since the sensor performance is tied to their dated fabs. This will not change in 3 months time.

Yes it depends on customers style. I´m not about to jump the ship every two years, so The body brand has pretty no impact on decision. It´s cheaper so I can afford more (lenses and stuff) later. If he´s about to "consume", then you´re totally right. Who knows...

This is not healthy thinking. You might be worse body with every brand at certain time, and it MUST NOT be the decisive part of your photography gear. That´s why I mentioned A SYSTEM. Body is nothing in comparison.

No everyone will invest a fortune in lenses. Its very hard to beat N k500 with the tammie 17-50 non vc. At it's price. The cheap Tam 70-300mm also benefits the ibis. Getting such a capable starter kit is great.

Of course not everybody. Does not mean NONE. I just offered my angle of view and some would agree. It´s cool you don´t. We have not a clue who´s right. Maybe both.

Besides do your ef-s lenses fit on a 5d?

What does it have to do with anything? Of course not. If I think about upgrading to FF later, I just go with EF lens.

Another benefit for Nikon.

Don´t they produce DX lenses?

Yes but they don't hit your mirror. You can actually use dx lenses on fx. The 35mm dx is a good example. The others require serious cropping. This can be done automaticly.

In the meantime it depends on each needs. I considered T5i as overpriced product. I´d rather go T3i/SL1, or D7100/70D. Nothing in between. Not worth in my opinion.

Besides the 70d no crop canon is wort buying

Of course. That´s why canon leads in sales

McDonalds is leading in selling burgers. That does not mean they make the best burgers.

-- hide signature --

Why does he do it?

Well, that DX thing is maybe vital for you, but in general I don´t consider it as a decisive moment to buy into any system....

Mcdonalds LOL!

You´re absolutely right here. Most money comes from utter crap businesses. But that does not automatically mean that something selling good is crap. Only way could be performance/bucks ratio comparison, but that kind benchmark are not really valid. Nikon would loose, and as a Canon user I must say it would be VERY UNFAIR for Nikon here. Paper can hold "everything". Everyone has different measures.

So we just have different opinions. I won´t break yours. If you want to break mine, you should do something real about it, not just say it. I´ve tried few Nikons in shop and I hate their lower class products, because of handling and settings. On the contrary 7100 (and whole sytem with it) looks like every other APS-C cam killer.

Go with the SL1 .

I second what the previous poster says. I recently compared the specs of the 100D and the 1200D for a friend. There are three things omitted from the 1200D, to keep the price down and to keep it from nibbling away at sales of the bodies higher up the line.

1. High resolution screen. Vital, as you'll realise if you've come from an older DSLR with a low res screen.

2. Touchscreen. Not so vital, but very useful and intuitive.

3. Depth of field preview button.

So the conclusion. Stretch to the 100D (SL1) - it's worth the extra.

Agreed, SL1

dpfan32 wrote:

Does Nikon offer a 40mm f/2.8 pancake for 150€? No.

They have a 35mm F1. 8 For €199, -  which is actually a more useful focal range + a stop faster

Then they have a 40mm f2. 8 micro too for that price. This focal length is actually a + for the Nikon System and a big one too.

Does Nikon offer a 24mm f/2.8 pancake for 150€? No.

Nope they don't and this is a solid argument. Mirrorless systems tend to have lenses like this though

Does Nikon offer a 55-250mm for 170€? No.

They have a 55-200 and a 55-300mm

Canon is a bit cheaper so that's a small advantage.

Does Nikon offer such a small body like the the 100D? No.

The D3300 isn't that much bigger and actually smaller with the bundled collapsible kit.

you want a small body? get a mirrorless!

Does the 3300 offer such a good video autofocus and silent cheap lenses like the STM lenses? No.

If video is a priority get a Sony or Panasonic. Don't bother with Dslr's.

Does the 3300 have a touchscreen? No.

Nope good point for the 100d

So there are some reasons buying Canon

better dynamic range and slightly better ISO (if any better) on the Nikon? this no entry level cheap-DSLR buyer will ever notice in real life photos.

24mp without an AA filter too for a significant edge in fine detail.

These are strong arguments for the Nikon no way arround it

More he will notice that Canon makes much better looking JPEG in terms of colors.

Nikon has punchier greens for landscapes Canon has nice warm skintones.

No winner just a matter of taste. If one shoots raw and edits in post this has limited value.

This whole sensor stuf thing is overrated, there are many + points for Canon.

A touchscreen and 2 lenses(you forgot the 10-18mm) vs better image quality and performance.  the only thing that is certain that no one should buy the 1200d-1300d

dpfan32 wrote:

Nikon is in general a bit more expensive.

Actually I already had a camera with 24 megapixels: the Sony Alpha a5100.

I didn't see any big difference even to my 12 megapixels 1100D.

Bur this was maybe due to Sonys lenses, the affordable lenses were absolutely crap! Blurry spots even in the center of the frame...

Especially the Sony consumer zooms are crap the 16-50 pancake in particular. That said it runs in circles arround the 1200d once you mount one of their affordable primes.

Canon has excellent sharp cheap lenses. Nobody raves about Nikons lenses. The cheap one are worse than Canons, so the resolution advantage is gone with the wind.

The STM lenses are good. better then the current Nikon kit lenses.  One problem they don't ship with the 1200-1300d.

The Nikkor collapsible VR lens is as at least as good as the ISII. Not to mention more practical

(smaller non rotating front element)