Good camera

[TheTeenagePhotographer]

Well if you are new in photography and you have not had a slr before you should consitter buying this camera, it has a good quality image and you get value for money unlike many other rivals

 

[Deviantfotografer]

I own this camera with the Tamron 18-270mm lens. I love it and the high ISO works well too!!!!

 

[BarnET]

Well if you are new in photography and you have not had a slr before you should consitter buying this camera, it has a good quality image and you get value for money unlike many other rivals

i wonder why you will get more value for money with this unlike it's rivals.

The rivals have better sensors and some are actually better equipped too.

And then Nikon offers better cheap lenses for beginners.

The 50mm F1.8 and 35mm F1.8

The 600D was a decent camera. Now it's getting old and the compitions has moved beyond what it can do.

 

[Digirame]

Yes, the competition does have some good gear. That said, then if we want, we can use that brand. I've used four different brands, after I bought my first 1mp digital camera.

Does Nikon have STM lenses or the equivalent? Do you have some documentation or links that show that Nikon has "better cheap lenses for beginners". I've been rather impressed with the Canon 18-55mm IS and Canon 55-250mm IS kit lenses that I purchased as part of a bundled price for approximately $150 (USD) each.

Oh, also to the OP...the Canon T3i (600D) should be excellent for kids, pets and sports when we use the camera and lenses properly. It is excellent in low light, by low light I mean generally during the day with clouds or rain. With my Canon T2i (550D) which is similar to the Canon T3i (600D) camera, I have been impressed with the pictures I have taken at ISO1600 to ISO5000 with the kit lenses. Lately, I've been also impressed with some of the on-camera flash pictures I've taken by increasing the flash compensation and increasing the shutter speed to 1/200th of a second. From what we hear from people on these forums, it seems that most issues or problems that beginners have with these cameras, is that they don't know how to use them to their fullest extent (and that includes any brand or model).

 

[Albert Silver]

Well if you are new in photography and you have not had a slr before you should consitter buying this camera, it has a good quality image and you get value for money unlike many other rivals

i wonder why you will get more value for money with this unlike it's rivals.

The rivals have better sensors and some are actually better equipped too.

And then Nikon offers better cheap lenses for beginners.

The 50mm F1.8 and 35mm F1.8

The 600D was a decent camera. Now it's getting old and the compitions has moved beyond what it can do.

The 600D is not a new camera, so you do need to realize you are going to get it a LOT cheaper than the newer rivals, hence the word "value". A few weeks ago the 600D plus the kit 18-55mm lens (refurbished) could be purchased for $389 from Canon with a one year warranty.

 

[BarnET]

Yes, the competition does have some good gear. That said, then if we want, we can use that brand. I've used four different brands, after I bought my first 1mp digital camera.

Does Nikon have STM lenses or the equivalent? Do you have some documentation or links that show that Nikon has "better cheap lenses for beginners".

I've been rather impressed with the Canon 18-55mm IS and Canon 55-250mm IS kit lenses that I purchased as part of a bundled price for approximately $150 (USD) each.

STM is only the silent stepper motor. The 55-300mm DX is a good equiv. to the 55-250mm IS

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compa...-f-1-8-II-on-Canon-EOS-700D___435_919_187_870

here both 50mm the Nikon is sharper has better silent AF and is better build.

Oh, also to the OP...the Canon T3i (600D) should be excellent for kids, pets and sports when we use the camera and lenses properly.

The problem is that the Nikon D5100 which was it's direct peer is better in low light. That enables you to use higher iso's

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Niko...5100-vs-Canon-EOS-600D-the-dxomark-comparison

It is excellent in low light, by low light I mean generally during the day with clouds or rain. With my Canon T2i (550D) which is similar to the Canon T3i (600D) camera, I have been impressed with the pictures I have taken at ISO1600 to ISO5000 with the kit lenses.

Like above it may be impressive the D5100 is simply even more impressive especially if you have to boost your shadows.

i will post a link later on this topic

Lately, I've been also impressed with some of the flash pictures I've taken by increasing the flash compensation and increasing the shutter speed to 1/200th of a second.

1/200th isn't that much more as 1/18oth

From what we hear from people on these forums, it seems that most issues or problems that beginners have with these cameras, is that they don't know how to use them to their fullest extent (and that includes any brand or model).

yup but that doesn't make a canon better then a Nikon that makes the user incompetent

 

[BarnET]

Well if you are new in photography and you have not had a slr before you should consitter buying this camera, it has a good quality image and you get value for money unlike many other rivals

i wonder why you will get more value for money with this unlike it's rivals.

The rivals have better sensors and some are actually better equipped too.

And then Nikon offers better cheap lenses for beginners.

The 50mm F1.8 and 35mm F1.8

The 600D was a decent camera. Now it's getting old and the compitions has moved beyond what it can do.

The 600D is not a new camera, so you do need to realize you are going to get it a LOT cheaper than the newer rivals, hence the word "value". A few weeks ago the 600D plus the kit 18-55mm lens (refurbished) could be purchased for $389 from Canon with a one year warranty.

And how much is the better performing similar age D5100

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-list...03452533&sr=8-1&keywords=d5100&condition=used

checkout yourself

 

[BarnET]

Yes, the competition does have some good gear. That said, then if we want, we can use that brand. I've used four different brands, after I bought my first 1mp digital camera.

Does Nikon have STM lenses or the equivalent? Do you have some documentation or links that show that Nikon has "better cheap lenses for beginners".

I've been rather impressed with the Canon 18-55mm IS and Canon 55-250mm IS kit lenses that I purchased as part of a bundled price for approximately $150 (USD) each.

STM is only the silent stepper motor. The 55-300mm DX is a good equiv. to the 55-250mm IS

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compa...-f-1-8-II-on-Canon-EOS-700D___435_919_187_870

here both 50mm the Nikon is sharper has better silent AF and is better build.

Oh, also to the OP...the Canon T3i (600D) should be excellent for kids, pets and sports when we use the camera and lenses properly.

The problem is that the Nikon D5100 which was it's direct peer is better in low light. That enables you to use higher iso's

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Niko...5100-vs-Canon-EOS-600D-the-dxomark-comparison

It is excellent in low light, by low light I mean generally during the day with clouds or rain. With my Canon T2i (550D) which is similar to the Canon T3i (600D) camera, I have been impressed with the pictures I have taken at ISO1600 to ISO5000 with the kit lenses.

Like above it may be impressive the D5100 is simply even more impressive especially if you have to boost your shadows.

i will post a link later on this topic

Lately, I've been also impressed with some of the flash pictures I've taken by increasing the flash compensation and increasing the shutter speed to 1/200th of a second.

1/200th isn't that much more as 1/18oth

From what we hear from people on these forums, it seems that most issues or problems that beginners have with these cameras, is that they don't know how to use them to their fullest extent (and that includes any brand or model).

yup but that doesn't make a canon better then a Nikon that makes the user incompetent

here is the link about the shadow difference i promised

 

[Albert Silver]

Well if you are new in photography and you have not had a slr before you should consitter buying this camera, it has a good quality image and you get value for money unlike many other rivals

i wonder why you will get more value for money with this unlike it's rivals.

The rivals have better sensors and some are actually better equipped too.

And then Nikon offers better cheap lenses for beginners.

The 50mm F1.8 and 35mm F1.8

The 600D was a decent camera. Now it's getting old and the compitions has moved beyond what it can do.

The 600D is not a new camera, so you do need to realize you are going to get it a LOT cheaper than the newer rivals, hence the word "value". A few weeks ago the 600D plus the kit 18-55mm lens (refurbished) could be purchased for $389 from Canon with a one year warranty.

And how much is the better performing similar age D5100

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-list...03452533&sr=8-1&keywords=d5100&condition=used

checkout yourself

Better performing for stills, a little, and much worse for video. The 5100 is more of a specialist camera. And let's not forget the 600D can get Magic Lantern, which adds so much functionality it is quite amazing.

 

[Digirame]

The Nikon D5100 has only marginal improvements in high ISO performance, like somewhere near one half of a F-stop. Yes, you are right...by the numbers...there are some things better. But it's not great enough. Now when I changed from my 8 & 10mp Olympus DSLR cameras to 18mp Canon DSLR cameras then there was a huge jump.

So I assume what you mean is that Nikon does not have STM lenses or the equivalent. It also appears that you base your better cheaper lens remark on the 50mm lens.

I appreciate your concern about the dynamic range and that is a big issue for me on a sunny day, taking pictures in a forest. But again...the difference is not big enough.

Originally, I was planning to buy the Nikon D5100, but there was flooding in SE Asia, so I looked at Canon. I thought that Canon's "Gold Award" T2i (550D) camera was outstanding. Now, it's old technology, just like the Canon T3i (600D) camera.

I think we are splitting hairs, if we continue talking about minor differences in prices and specifications on these older cameras. I don't know about anyone else, but I'll be looking at the new technology next and will eventually leave this old technology behind.

 

[BarnET]

Well if you are new in photography and you have not had a slr before you should consitter buying this camera, it has a good quality image and you get value for money unlike many other rivals

i wonder why you will get more value for money with this unlike it's rivals.

The rivals have better sensors and some are actually better equipped too.

And then Nikon offers better cheap lenses for beginners.

The 50mm F1.8 and 35mm F1.8

The 600D was a decent camera. Now it's getting old and the compitions has moved beyond what it can do.

The 600D is not a new camera, so you do need to realize you are going to get it a LOT cheaper than the newer rivals, hence the word "value". A few weeks ago the 600D plus the kit 18-55mm lens (refurbished) could be purchased for $389 from Canon with a one year warranty.

And how much is the better performing similar age D5100

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-list...03452533&sr=8-1&keywords=d5100&condition=used

checkout yourself

Better performing for stills, a little, and much worse for video. The 5100 is more of a specialist camera. And let's not forget the 600D can get Magic Lantern, which adds so much functionality it is quite amazing.

It's great what magic lantern can do. Still if video is a priority I would not even touch an DSLR. An Panasonic g6 is much better for video. it can be hacked to high bitrates. And it has a working viewfinder while filming.

You can adapt all lenses to mirrorless and peaking makes pulling focus child's play. Peaking also works in the viewfinder.

 

[brightcolours]

Well if you are new in photography and you have not had a slr before you should consitter buying this camera, it has a good quality image and you get value for money unlike many other rivals

i wonder why you will get more value for money with this unlike it's rivals.

The rivals have better sensors and some are actually better equipped too.

You mean without mirror lock up, no DOF check, badly implemented live view?

And then Nikon offers better cheap lenses for beginners.

The 50mm F1.8 and 35mm F1.8

The Nikkor 35mm f1.8 is not a "better" lens. It has horrid background bokeh rendering, quite strong barrel distortion for a 35mm prime on APS-C, and quite strong CA even. The Canon EF 35mm f2 has less barrel distortion and renders nicer.

The Canon EF 50mm f1.8 is cheaper, and more usable as the crop factor makes it 80mm FF equivalent, where the Nikkor falls just short at 75mm, for ideal portrait range work.

The 600D was a decent camera. Now it's getting old and the compitions has moved beyond what it can do.

Compititions is not a word .

Similar sized Nikons still have badly implemented live view, no mirror lock up, and so on.

 

[brightcolours]

Well if you are new in photography and you have not had a slr before you should consitter buying this camera, it has a good quality image and you get value for money unlike many other rivals

i wonder why you will get more value for money with this unlike it's rivals.

The rivals have better sensors and some are actually better equipped too.

And then Nikon offers better cheap lenses for beginners.

The 50mm F1.8 and 35mm F1.8

The 600D was a decent camera. Now it's getting old and the compitions has moved beyond what it can do.

The 600D is not a new camera, so you do need to realize you are going to get it a LOT cheaper than the newer rivals, hence the word "value". A few weeks ago the 600D plus the kit 18-55mm lens (refurbished) could be purchased for $389 from Canon with a one year warranty.

And how much is the better performing similar age D5100

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-list...03452533&sr=8-1&keywords=d5100&condition=used

checkout yourself

Better performing for stills,

Not really. I'd call it worse performing.

a little, and much worse for video. The 5100 is more of a specialist camera. And let's not forget the 600D can get Magic Lantern, which adds so much functionality it is quite amazing.

 

[BarnET]

Well if you are new in photography and you have not had a slr before you should consitter buying this camera, it has a good quality image and you get value for money unlike many other rivals

i wonder why you will get more value for money with this unlike it's rivals.

The rivals have better sensors and some are actually better equipped too.

And then Nikon offers better cheap lenses for beginners.

The 50mm F1.8 and 35mm F1.8

The 600D was a decent camera. Now it's getting old and the compitions has moved beyond what it can do.

The 600D is not a new camera, so you do need to realize you are going to get it a LOT cheaper than the newer rivals, hence the word "value". A few weeks ago the 600D plus the kit 18-55mm lens (refurbished) could be purchased for $389 from Canon with a one year warranty.

And how much is the better performing similar age D5100

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-list...03452533&sr=8-1&keywords=d5100&condition=used

checkout yourself

Better performing for stills,

Not really. I'd call it worse performing.

More dynamic range cleaner shadows and less noise at higher iso's is worse performing

a little, and much worse for video. The 5100 is more of a specialist camera. And let's not forget the 600D can get Magic Lantern, which adds so much functionality it is quite amazing.

 

[brightcolours]

Well if you are new in photography and you have not had a slr before you should consitter buying this camera, it has a good quality image and you get value for money unlike many other rivals

i wonder why you will get more value for money with this unlike it's rivals.

The rivals have better sensors and some are actually better equipped too.

And then Nikon offers better cheap lenses for beginners.

The 50mm F1.8 and 35mm F1.8

The 600D was a decent camera. Now it's getting old and the compitions has moved beyond what it can do.

The 600D is not a new camera, so you do need to realize you are going to get it a LOT cheaper than the newer rivals, hence the word "value". A few weeks ago the 600D plus the kit 18-55mm lens (refurbished) could be purchased for $389 from Canon with a one year warranty.

And how much is the better performing similar age D5100

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-list...03452533&sr=8-1&keywords=d5100&condition=used

checkout yourself

Better performing for stills,

Not really. I'd call it worse performing.

More dynamic range cleaner shadows

The 600D has enough DR in RAW at base ISO as it is, more is useless. Unless one is a shadow puller (the weirdest profession ever). I like my photos contrasty, thanks..

Not better at higher ISO.

How is the mirror lock up? How is the lens deconvolution working in your Nikon RAW processor? How is the badly implemented live view helping you get the results you are after?

Worse performing, yes.

and less noise at higher iso's is worse performing

a little, and much worse for video. The 5100 is more of a specialist camera. And let's not forget the 600D can get Magic Lantern, which adds so much functionality it is quite amazing.

 

[BarnET]

Well if you are new in photography and you have not had a slr before you should consitter buying this camera, it has a good quality image and you get value for money unlike many other rivals

i wonder why you will get more value for money with this unlike it's rivals.

The rivals have better sensors and some are actually better equipped too.

And then Nikon offers better cheap lenses for beginners.

The 50mm F1.8 and 35mm F1.8

The 600D was a decent camera. Now it's getting old and the compitions has moved beyond what it can do.

The 600D is not a new camera, so you do need to realize you are going to get it a LOT cheaper than the newer rivals, hence the word "value". A few weeks ago the 600D plus the kit 18-55mm lens (refurbished) could be purchased for $389 from Canon with a one year warranty.

And how much is the better performing similar age D5100

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-list...03452533&sr=8-1&keywords=d5100&condition=used

checkout yourself

Better performing for stills,

Not really. I'd call it worse performing.

More dynamic range cleaner shadows

The 600D has enough DR in RAW at base ISO as it is, more is useless. Unless one is a shadow puller (the weirdest profession ever). I like my photos contrasty, thanks..

So you claim less is better. You have the option to get detail out of the shadows. You can make the Nikon more contrasty if you want it you can't get it the other way

Not better at higher ISO.

It is in raw not in jpeg blame the image processor if you have a d5100 just shoot raw.

How is the mirror lock up?

Not really an issue

How is the lens deconvolution working in your Nikon RAW processor? How is the badly implemented live view helping you get the results you are after?

The d5100 got a firmware update with lens profiles a year ago.

Live view is terrible in the 1200d as well it has no on sensor pdaf

Worse performing, yes.

Better in stills.

and less noise at higher iso's is worse performing

a little, and much worse for video. The 5100 is more of a specialist camera. And let's not forget the 600D can get Magic Lantern, which adds so much functionality it is quite amazing.

 

[brightcolours]

Well if you are new in photography and you have not had a slr before you should consitter buying this camera, it has a good quality image and you get value for money unlike many other rivals

i wonder why you will get more value for money with this unlike it's rivals.

The rivals have better sensors and some are actually better equipped too.

And then Nikon offers better cheap lenses for beginners.

The 50mm F1.8 and 35mm F1.8

The 600D was a decent camera. Now it's getting old and the compitions has moved beyond what it can do.

The 600D is not a new camera, so you do need to realize you are going to get it a LOT cheaper than the newer rivals, hence the word "value". A few weeks ago the 600D plus the kit 18-55mm lens (refurbished) could be purchased for $389 from Canon with a one year warranty.

And how much is the better performing similar age D5100

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-list...03452533&sr=8-1&keywords=d5100&condition=used

checkout yourself

Better performing for stills,

Not really. I'd call it worse performing.

More dynamic range cleaner shadows

The 600D has enough DR in RAW at base ISO as it is, more is useless. Unless one is a shadow puller (the weirdest profession ever). I like my photos contrasty, thanks..

So you claim less is better. You have the option to get detail out of the shadows. You can make the Nikon more contrasty if you want it you can't get it the other way

Nonsense, the Canon has enough RAW headroom also. Come on now, you shadow puller.

Not better at higher ISO.

It is in raw not in jpeg blame the image processor if you have a d5100 just shoot raw.

Nonsense, the D5100 is not better in higher IS0.

How is the mirror lock up?

Not really an issue

So, how is it, that mirror lock up?

How is the lens deconvolution working in your Nikon RAW processor? How is the badly implemented live view helping you get the results you are after?

The d5100 got a firmware update with lens profiles a year ago.

Lens profiles? I think I was saying deconvolution.

Live view is terrible in the 1200d as well it has no on sensor pdaf

Nonsense, live view implementation on the 1200D is just fine. Why are you bringing up the 1200D, by the way, I am sure we were talking about the 600D?

Worse performing, yes.

Better in stills.

Nonsense. Shadow pulling makes for worse images.

and less noise at higher iso's is worse performing

a little, and much worse for video. The 5100 is more of a specialist camera. And let's not forget the 600D can get Magic Lantern, which adds so much functionality it is quite amazing.

 

[karl mohr]

The T3i and the other Rebels are what they are. I like the ones I have. Just enjoy your cameras everybody and don't let the Nikon 'fanboys' get under your skin.

 

[BarnET]

Well if you are new in photography and you have not had a slr before you should consitter buying this camera, it has a good quality image and you get value for money unlike many other rivals

i wonder why you will get more value for money with this unlike it's rivals.

The rivals have better sensors and some are actually better equipped too.

And then Nikon offers better cheap lenses for beginners.

The 50mm F1.8 and 35mm F1.8

The 600D was a decent camera. Now it's getting old and the compitions has moved beyond what it can do.

The 600D is not a new camera, so you do need to realize you are going to get it a LOT cheaper than the newer rivals, hence the word "value". A few weeks ago the 600D plus the kit 18-55mm lens (refurbished) could be purchased for $389 from Canon with a one year warranty.

And how much is the better performing similar age D5100

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-list...03452533&sr=8-1&keywords=d5100&condition=used

checkout yourself

Better performing for stills,

Not really. I'd call it worse performing.

More dynamic range cleaner shadows

The 600D has enough DR in RAW at base ISO as it is, more is useless. Unless one is a shadow puller (the weirdest profession ever). I like my photos contrasty, thanks..

So you claim less is better. You have the option to get detail out of the shadows. You can make the Nikon more contrasty if you want it you can't get it the other way

Nonsense, the Canon has enough RAW headroom also. Come on now, you shadow puller.

Nope it doesn't just look it up on youtube

Not better at higher ISO.

It is in raw not in jpeg blame the image processor if you have a d5100 just shoot raw.

Nonsense, the D5100 is not better in higher IS0.

Please I did my research its time you check raws

How is the mirror lock up?

Not really an issue

So, how is it, that mirror lock up?

I use the viewfinder. It's a DSLR why not use it in the way you should besides I have no problem with blurriness

How is the lens deconvolution working in your Nikon RAW processor? How is the badly implemented live view helping you get the results you are after?

The d5100 got a firmware update with lens profiles a year ago.

Lens profiles? I think I was saying deconvolution.

Live view is terrible in the 1200d as well it has no on sensor pdaf

Nonsense, live view implementation on the 1200D is just fine. Why are you bringing up the 1200D, by the way, I am sure we were talking about the 600D?

Because they are the exact same thing......

Worse performing, yes.

Better in stills.

Nonsense. Shadow pulling makes for worse images.

Over processing leads to poor images. Pushing shadows on a canon too since you will get banding and insane noise levels.

and less noise at higher iso's is worse performing

a little, and much worse for video. The 5100 is more of a specialist camera. And let's not forget the 600D can get Magic Lantern, which adds so much functionality it is quite amazing.

 

[brightcolours]

Well if you are new in photography and you have not had a slr before you should consitter buying this camera, it has a good quality image and you get value for money unlike many other rivals

i wonder why you will get more value for money with this unlike it's rivals.

The rivals have better sensors and some are actually better equipped too.

And then Nikon offers better cheap lenses for beginners.

The 50mm F1.8 and 35mm F1.8

The 600D was a decent camera. Now it's getting old and the compitions has moved beyond what it can do.

The 600D is not a new camera, so you do need to realize you are going to get it a LOT cheaper than the newer rivals, hence the word "value". A few weeks ago the 600D plus the kit 18-55mm lens (refurbished) could be purchased for $389 from Canon with a one year warranty.

And how much is the better performing similar age D5100

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-list...03452533&sr=8-1&keywords=d5100&condition=used

checkout yourself

Better performing for stills,

Not really. I'd call it worse performing.

More dynamic range cleaner shadows

The 600D has enough DR in RAW at base ISO as it is, more is useless. Unless one is a shadow puller (the weirdest profession ever). I like my photos contrasty, thanks..

So you claim less is better. You have the option to get detail out of the shadows. You can make the Nikon more contrasty if you want it you can't get it the other way

Nonsense, the Canon has enough RAW headroom also. Come on now, you shadow puller.

Nope it doesn't just look it up on youtube

Yes it does, shadow puller.

Not better at higher ISO.

It is in raw not in jpeg blame the image processor if you have a d5100 just shoot raw.

Nonsense, the D5100 is not better in higher IS0.

Please I did my research its time you check raws

You did no research it seems, I checked just now on DPreview, and there is no difference between the D5100 and the 600D at ISO 3200 and 6400 noise wise.

How is the mirror lock up?

Not really an issue

So, how is it, that mirror lock up?

I use the viewfinder. It's a DSLR why not use it in the way you should besides I have no problem with blurriness

I suspect you don't know what mirror lock up is, and what it is for.

How is the lens deconvolution working in your Nikon RAW processor? How is the badly implemented live view helping you get the results you are after?

The d5100 got a firmware update with lens profiles a year ago.

Lens profiles? I think I was saying deconvolution.

Live view is terrible in the 1200d as well it has no on sensor pdaf

Nonsense, live view implementation on the 1200D is just fine. Why are you bringing up the 1200D, by the way, I am sure we were talking about the 600D?

Because they are the exact same thing......

You said you did research. Then don't write nonsense.... Two different cameras.

And still, bot have way better live view implementation than ant Nikon APS-C DSLR.

Worse performing, yes.

Better in stills.

Nonsense. Shadow pulling makes for worse images.

Over processing leads to poor images. Pushing shadows on a canon too since you will get banding and insane noise levels.

Still writing nonsense. If you push shadows several stops, you are indeed making poor images. Shadow puller is a weird profession.

and less noise at higher iso's is worse performing

a little, and much worse for video. The 5100 is more of a specialist camera. And let's not forget the 600D can get Magic Lantern, which adds so much functionality it is quite amazing.