topic Re: DSLR 4 Me in EOS DSLR & Mirrorless Cameras

DSLR 4 Me

Ohaganrh — Mon, 30 Sep 2013 16:53:37 GMT

Hello all!

I have been a point and shoot guy for years(stop rolling your eyes 🙂 ), however I now want more out of my photography, more versatility and capabilities. I'm struggling big time in deciding which DSLR to get, not even completely settled on Canon yet (don't hate me). I'm looking for some insight and help deciding which is best for me coming in fresh with no brand commitment, no prior model commitment, it's all going to be new and equally confusing at first. Clean slate, where do I start??

Here is some insight into my needs:

- Travel. I travel an average amount and like to document everything. The compactness of the P+S is nice but they're just so delicate and limited. I just want more capabilities and mainly lens options. I looked into mirrorless some but think I'm more DSLR suited. Variety in subject makes DSLR attractive, close up, far away, landscape, sports...can do it all with good quality. The mirrorless still feel kind of 'tinny' to me compared to DSLR.

- Main point for me is long exposure/low light performance. I'm very into astronomy, and someday would like to transition to astrophotography so would like the camera to be able to grow into that role a few years from now. I just don't know what matters and how much here. High ISO? ISO noise? Pixel and sensor size? How important are bigger numbers in these? Pixel-peeper.com seems like most people rarely surpass 1600 ISO to do night sky star shots. For the time being I want to be able to take nice clear shots of the night sky(without a scope) with little noise. Can't afford the 60Da, figured I'd get out ahead of that one.

-Video: I only really use this for travel, once in awhile I'll shoot a quick clip of something extra interesting, but not a huge concern, don't need a high end video orirented machine. I do however feel like the vari-angle screen would be handy in shooting stills too, not a neccessity. Those of you who have used both could be more helpful on this?

- Budget. I can't afford a professional FF camera which I'm sure would be best for night sky shots. I want to be under $1000 with a basic lens, and preferably well below unless an option really stands out above the cheaper options.

Also based on what I've described, recommendations in lenses would be greatly appreciated. Again, on a budget and for awhile the kit lens will have to do for me. seems like I'd want a telephoto with IS, the nifty fifty, and a wide angle for landscape. Any suggestions/ input?

Here is what I've been looking at:

Canon 60d, Canon 7D used, Canon T3i/T4i, Nikon D5200, Pentax K50, Sony A65. The K50 looked great on paper but I read over and over to get into one of the 'ecosystems' of Canon or Nikon. Not to mention every site I've checked says Canon over Nikon for astrophotography. Can anyone back that up?

Hope you guys can help because I am stumped! I wish the choices were much more clean cut and obvious. I'm constantly doing the, 'well for another $200.....' dance. Where do you draw the line? If canon had greater pixel/sensor size and better noise handling (Nikon D5200) it'd be an easy choice of Canon. Then again, I don't understand how important that really is when it looks glaringly better on paper. Thanks in advance!

Rory

Re: DSLR 4 Me

Skirball — Mon, 30 Sep 2013 17:29:08 GMT

I have been a point and shoot guy for years(stop rolling your eyes ), however I now want more out of my photography, more versatility and capabilities. I'm struggling big time in deciding which DSLR to get, not even completely settled on Canon yet (don't hate me). I'm looking for some insight and help deciding which is best for me coming in fresh with no brand commitment, no prior model commitment, it's all going to be new and equally confusing at first. Clean slate, where do I start??

There’s a lot to comment on, but I think I could focus mainly just on this focus.

First point, nobody should be rolling their eyes at a point and shoot. Those that are are gearheads, and you should just ignore them anyway. PnS have their purposes, and the gap between them and dSLR is getting smaller. They’re far more portable, cheaper, and (what the gearheads don’t want to admit) can take a landscape shot just as good as a dSLR so long as you’re not enlarging to huge proportions. My first piece of advice, is to understand and accept this. It’ll make you a better photographer to know what your camera can, and can’t, do better/worse than other options.

Canon: I’ve got no love for them. Sure, they make good stuff, but they’re just a corporation trying to make money. If lenses and camera bodies were universally compatible I’d have a lot less Canon equipment. But they know this, so those of use with thousands invested in Canon glass are here for the long run. Go buy whatever fits your needs, they’re all good companies. Canon and Nikon will give you more options for glass. Sony is relatively new, and they’re bringing innovation to the camera body market, which is nice, but you don’t get the glass options. I also like buying from companies that specialize in optics. At the level you’re buying at the offerings between Canon and Nikon will be almost identical.

Low light is where dSLR excels, and they’re great for astrophotography. But at the budget you have I would recommend a Canon Rebel (or Nikon equiv), a T4i refurbished if you can find it is a great start, and some lenses. I wouldn’t go up to a 60D, you won’t have any money for lenses. Until you start getting to really high end cameras, lenses will make a much greater impact on image quality than the camera body. The difference between a T4i and 60D has more to do with camera features than image quality.

Re: DSLR 4 Me

Skirball — Mon, 30 Sep 2013 17:32:07 GMT

@Ohaganrh wrote:
Hope you guys can help because I am stumped! I wish the choices were much more clean cut and obvious. I'm constantly doing the, 'well for another $200.....' dance. Where do you draw the line? If canon had greater pixel/sensor size and better noise handling (Nikon D5200) it'd be an easy choice of Canon. Then again, I don't understand how important that really is when it looks glaringly better on paper. Thanks in advance!

Rory

Don't get too caught up in Pixel peeping, both Canon and Nikon offer good options. You won't see the difference near as much as the internet would lead you to believe. Especially in the beginning, camera skills will have far more of an impact.

That said, had I not been invested in Canon glass I probably would have got a Nikon D600 instead of a Canon 6D. The dynamic range of Nikon at low ISO is quite nice.

Re: DSLR 4 Me

TCampbell — Mon, 30 Sep 2013 23:44:02 GMT

"The dynamic range of Nikon at low ISO is quite nice."

But keep mind the dynamic range of the Nikon at high ISO is not as nice. There are always trade-offs.

I bought my camera because I was often dealing with situations where I needed high ISO.

Re: DSLR 4 Me

Ohaganrh — Tue, 01 Oct 2013 13:47:35 GMT

Thanks to both replies so far.

Skirball: Refurb T4i is exactly what I've been leaning toward. Is there any reason to fear the refurb? From what I understand the T4i is basically refurb due to problems with the grip turing white and also being discontinued for the same and to relieve T5i of competition some. Which makes me feel some of these refurb T4's could be basically new cameras and therefore a great deal.

My P+S was a Nikon and I loved the quality of that. It blew me away for a $150 simpleton. So I have a little bit of draw toward Nikon because I've witnessed first hand the quality, though never in DSLR, and I've never touched a Canon. 2nd point of importance, the vast majority of my DSLR friends have Canons, so buying a Canon gives me a better support group in a way. Allows me to borrow lenses perhaps.... worth consideration right there.

Sony looks great on paper and has some cool tech, the translucent mirror, giving way to fast shutter speeds, GPS (which I hear is pretty nice for astrophotography, etc. They seem like they might push the boundaries in the future. Will they ever surpass Canon and Nikon though? Who knows. Trying to bet on the future in camera tech I imagine is impossible. It's likely the same as any other tech and one has the lead, then another, and so on. It worries me a bit they're new to the game in comparison as you said. Not as many lenses, AM brands don't have as many compatible lenses either. The translucent mirror I've read creates other issues that may affect the types of photography I'm into.

I've spent a lot of time on review sites such as photography blog, camera labs, DP Review.... I try to focus on the ISO and image quality comparisons. These lead you to believe Nikon has the superior ISO noise handling ability. How much exactly does this come into account for night sky shooting? I suppose if I can get a better handle on the ISO world, I can better understand the importance. Like I discussed before, the K50 looks great going up to 51,600 boost ISO, but in all reality, does anyone ever go that high in shooting? And if you did, could you even tell what anything was from all the noise? I'm not sure if you do much of this, but if you were to go out with a T4i or D5200 (My main choices to date), what settings would you be on to get a nice starry night photo? What lense would you have equipped?

Lastly, big differences between D5200 and T4i? Anything that really stands out or is it more or less down to Nikon vs. Canon?

Thanks again guys. It's very helpful to be able to bounce my thoughts around and see what experienced people have to say.

Re: DSLR 4 Me

Skirball — Tue, 01 Oct 2013 15:40:14 GMT

If I was in your shoes, and I decided to get a Canon, then a refurbished T4i is exactly what I’d get. I personally don’t have fear of refurbished, but some do. If you buy from Canon is comes with a 1 year warranty. Which, in my opinion, is long enough for electronics to act up if they’re going to have issues. Also, refurbished product usually is 100% inspected to specification. I can’t say I have first-hand knowledge of Canon’s manufacturing, but generally companies will not 100% new product off the line, only a sample. So it could be argued that refurbished product is less likely to fail than new product.

Here’s a T4i, looks like the price has actually gone up a bit, I’d guess they’re running out of their stock:

http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/cameras/refurbished-eos-digital-slr-cameras/eos-rebel-t4i-body-refurbished

Re: DSLR 4 Me

Skirball — Tue, 01 Oct 2013 15:44:50 GMT

Is that camera sold at the same pricepoint as the T4i? I was about to say no, there’s no difference, the Nikon and Canon offerings for entry-level dSLR are essentially the same. But I looked it up real quick, and to be honest – on paper – the Nikon looks much better. “On Paper” doesn’t always translate to real life, but I see a bigger sensor, much more AF points, and better high ISO performance. Those are something that are important to me. I don’t care about 24 MP, in fact I’d rather have less on a crop. Also, I think Nikon has some weird issue where not all their lenses with autofocus on their lower end cameras?

Regardless, either camera can provide you will great pictures. But if the cost is the same, and you’re not invested in Canon at all, it may be something to consider.

Re: DSLR 4 Me

Ohaganrh — Tue, 01 Oct 2013 16:04:17 GMT

Yes, thanks again Skirball! My research revealed similar findings. Looking kit vs. kit.... The T4i refurbished is $720 on Canon's site. Nikon's site doesn't appear to offer any D5200 refurb models, brand new is $800 with the kit lens. However, Adorama has a D5200, claimed as 'Refurbished by Nikon USA' for $680. I'm just unfamiliar with Adorama. So many scams out there I'm nervous of buying anywhere but dealers.

http://www.adorama.com/INKD5200KR.html

http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/cameras/refurbished-eos-digital-slr-cameras/eos-rebel-t4i-18-55mm-is-ii-lens-kit-refurbished

I'll have to continue reading reviews and just make a decision ultimately. I think it just gets to a point where you can't read or filter through any more information and have to just pick because there is no clear cut winner.

One last question...for now at least. Would I be better off going with the kit or buying refurbished body and an aftermarket lens...something like:

http://lenshero.com/lens/Sigma-18-125mm-f3.8-5.6-DC-OS-HSM-Canon-ef-lens

http://lenshero.com/lens/Sigma-18-50mm-f2.8-4.5-DC-OS-HSM-Canon-ef-lens

Would these be improved or are the cheaper AM lenses not much better than the kit lens from the dealer? Could you recommend some great lenses and types beginners should have, or for night sky shooting, travel, etc. Please keep in mind investing in the camera itself will eat up a lot of my funding, so I can't be buying $800 lenses and such. Is it worth it to buy cheaper AM lenses like those I linked or just use the kit lens and hold off until can afford really good and more expensive lenses? Thanks!!

Re: DSLR 4 Me

Skirball — Tue, 01 Oct 2013 16:24:53 GMT

Interesting. I would recommend doing some more research to get a feel for the comparison between the two. If the results are at all close, then don’t worry about it. People on the internet will debate the smallest difference in test charts until the cows come home, you’ll never see the difference in your photography. But if there is a legitimate difference, then perhaps Nikon is in your future. I will say though, that I learned on a 450D, ancient compared to either of these, and it’s still a fine camera. I still use it on occasion, and I know how to get it to give me the results I want. I know it’s limitations, but it’s still quite capable, so I’m sure the 650D will be as well.

Adorama is a fine company, one of the two major camera dealers in the US (B&H being the other). My first dSLR came from them, my second from B&H.

Kit lenses is a tough subject. On one hand, you’re new to dSLR, no telling how into it you’ll get, etc. The kit lenses offer an affordable solution to get you out and shooting. On the other, they’re not that great and if you upgrade later that’s a couple hundred dollars you could have spent towards something good. I got a Sigma 17-70 as my first upgrade when I broke my 18-55 kit lens while traveling. The difference was very noticeable, in performance and build. If you’re buying refurbished, and don’t get the big discounts of getting a kit, then yes, I’d recommend bumping up to something like a decent Sigma, or one of the Canon upgrades, like the the 18-135 STM. At a minimum you should try to get a good focal range out of the kit lens. It’s not going to be fast (large aperture), or crazy sharp, you might as well get flexibility. Though I will say that the Canon 55-250 kit lens is a decent piece for the price and I highly recommend one.

Re: DSLR 4 Me

Ohaganrh — Tue, 01 Oct 2013 17:09:32 GMT

Excellent! Thank you Skirball you've been a huge help.

Re: DSLR 4 Me

cicopo — Wed, 02 Oct 2013 14:18:51 GMT

Both brands (Canon & Nikon) take excellent photos & I can confess to having recently added a Nikon D7100 to my bag. It will become my travel camera coupled to their 28-300 & a yet to be determined lens in the 10-25 range. I have a lot of Canon & have shot Canon since the mid 70's so I'm very familiar with their gear. I had hoped the extra pixels from the Nikon would help with my Radio Control event photography but unfortunately their lens line up isn't meeting my needs. It would seem that Nikon lenses don't AF as fast as Conon L series lenses & Nikon doesn't offer a lens line up similar to the L's. This may not be an issue for you or countless others but it is something to be aware of.

This is however one of those cases where the equipment limits my results & although I have only been using the Nikon for a short time vs years of shooting Canon I know it's the equipment more than how I'm adapting to it, PLUS the increase (by 50%) in pixel count which means a 50% increase in softness when camera shake / or a poor pan smears the well defined areas in a photo. A higher pixel count sensor requires a more stable user, or higher shutter speed & or better lenses to get the same sharpness the lower pixel count sensor produced when both images are examined at 100%. If you didn't need to crop deeply it most likely wouldn't affect a normal sized print but if you do crop heavily it will.

These are things to consider because they can't be compared head to head at reasonable cost.

Re: DSLR 4 Me

Skirball — Wed, 02 Oct 2013 15:53:48 GMT

@cicopo wrote:
I can confess to having recently added a Nikon D7100 to my bag.

Heretic!

...just kidding 🙂

Re: DSLR 4 Me

cicopo — Wed, 02 Oct 2013 20:02:10 GMT

We often wonder if the other brand is as good or better & in my case I had been researching Nikon since the D800 came out. Fortunately I was overdue for a new camera for business purposes & could justify buying it with the kit lens (18-105 on the D7100) and I found a sale that allowed buying the 70-300 VC lens at well below it's used value if bought with the camera / kit lens as a package. Now I can't justify the 70-300 as a business purchase but I can own it for at least a year & sell it for more than I paid. In actual fact I thought the sale price was too good to be true & the price on the 70-300 went up $90 right after I bought it. It was a good thing that I had printed the ad & took it to the store.

Re: DSLR 4 Me

ebiggs1 — Wed, 02 Oct 2013 21:57:43 GMT

I can give you a few considerations from actual experience. That, I have been through in my photographic life. Plus I am a founding member of our local astronomy club.

The company I worked for was 100% dedicated to Nikon in the film days. When it came time to switch to digital, the obvious choice was Canon. Out went 1000's upon 1000's of dollars worth of Nikon equipment. In the beginning Canon digital was very much better than Nikon. Nikon was, has been, in catch up mode.

The advantage has now diminished and some choices in Nikon beat Canon on paper. Key word “on paper!”

As for comparing lenses, you must specify which specific lens you are comparing. Because you can't say the Canon line is better than the Nikon line is or vice versa.

There is cell phone, there is point and shoot and then there is DSLR. If you think a P&S is as good as a DSLR, you probably need to be using one. Oh and, don't forget iPad's, too! Hmmm they are great!?!?!?

All the guys and gals in our astronomy club use Canon bodies. Most have the articulated back versions.

(For piggy-back mounting on a scope) You do know you don't need a telephoto lens for Astro-photography. Unless you are shooting the Moon, the 50mm f1.4 will do nicely.

I do agree with others if you are looking at Rebel class cameras, it is a coin toss between Canon and Nikon. But if you are in this for the long haul, Canon is the better choice by far.

Re: DSLR 4 Me

ebiggs1 — Wed, 02 Oct 2013 23:28:41 GMT

On 3rd party lenses, I, as a rule, do not buy them. And, never, never ever buy a used 3rd party lens unless you are certain of it's history. There are just too many pit falls with them. Inability to focus and poor quality and worse poor imagine making. Not to mention lousy warranty service.

Canon does not reveal how it's cameras work to other companies. Thus they are left to reverse engineer the process and try to make something that works. Sometimes they are successful but most of time they are not.

However there are a few that are very nice and challenge Canon's own lenses. Again you must select a specific lens and go from there.

My list would say no Tokina lens, one Tamrom, the 24-70mm f2.8 and a handful of various Sigma's.

The Sigma “Art” series being some that are fantastic.

Re: DSLR 4 Me

cicopo — Wed, 02 Oct 2013 23:31:59 GMT

I've owned Tokina lenses & was very satisfied with them . There's also a very good chance i'll be buying their 11-16 f2.8 as my UWA for the Nikon.

Re: DSLR 4 Me

Ohaganrh — Thu, 03 Oct 2013 11:46:11 GMT

Thanks for the input ebiggs! I'm happy to get a response from someone with some astrophotography background. I'm hoping you could take a minute to fine tune some research I've done on trying to understand what is and is not important for nightsky photography. Since it will be a little while before I'm able to afford a better scope and mount, I'd like to focus less on astrophotography in that sense, and more on just nightsky shooting with a lens. Also, I understand it'll take years for me to become comfortable with a DSLR in my hand, and to understand how to properly use one, pair lenses, and so on. I just want to make sure I have a good foundation in the DSLR to build off of for my needs.

So I've discovered, that Canon is the preferred body for AP. I realize that by removing the IR filter is the best camera mod, but the 60Da is too expensive, and to get it done second hand is not cheap either. Many readings I've come across have said not to even worry, just get a cheap older body and get the IRF removed. That's all great if accurate but again, it'll be some time before I'm at that stage of piggybacking on scopes and such. Also, I don't want my first camera to be in this class as I assume removing the IRF makes it useless in day to day photography? So I'm just looking for a good entry level camera, for day to day, yet will also perform well enough for night sky shots as that will be much of what I do, but not all. I'm not expecting Tom Lowe quality images, just enough quality to maintain interest and develop ability.

I live in Genesee, PA. Near to Cherry Springs if you are familiar. So light pollution is next to nothing here. I have noticed most nightsky shots rarely surpass 6400 ISO. So should I not care so much about cameras like the Pentax K50 who can reach 51,600 ISO? Is it just too noisey at those extreme ISO levels? In reviews, they often have sections where you can see ISO performance but I'm not sure how this translates. Photographyblog.com for example is a favorite of mine. Yet they do their ISO tests on a crop of a magazine label. How does that transfer into nightsky shots? Obviously you really notice the noise against a crisp font and bold contrasting colors. But when it's implemented instead into a nightsky shot, is it more or less noticeable? Can you go higher in ISO in real life without losing quality, or without noticing it as well I should say? I've then checked uncage the soul, which only tests high end cameras. I know doing AP without a FF camera body is not ideal maybe, but surely there is a site out there for my class, who can't dole out $3k on a camera but want to have some fun and get started in AP.

Next up is settings for the camera. I've read and read on how to do AP and how to set your camera up for it. It covers things like white balance, manual bulb settings for longer exposures, RAW format, etc. Are these all settings I'll find on an entry level DSLR like the T4i/D5200? Or are they not as open to manipulation of settings and more 'auto' oriented?

I'm also considering the Sony a58. Do you have any experience with their SLT setup for AP? Would that in anyway be worse for shooting in low light? I have read about the technology but haven't come across anything covering it's low light performance compared with SLR. I'm wondering if you gain rapid fire ability at the expense of clarity in low light and excessive noise at higher ISO with the Sony technology?

Thank you again for your input. It's all very very helpful and I appreciate your patience with me while I try to get a grasp on everything.

Re: DSLR 4 Me

ebiggs1 — Thu, 03 Oct 2013 13:19:58 GMT

The very best advice I can give you on photographing the night time sky is http://tomjmartinez.blogspot.com.

This is by Tom Martinez, who is a master at photographing the night time sky. He and I became friends at Hallmark where we both worked for 40 years. He has become a published asto-photographer. He is an outstanding scope builder. He is also a very good teacher and lecturer.

As for you and your so far stated needs, I suggest a T3i, T4i, or the new T5i as you best choice. I imagine you can get the same performance from brand N, but I don't promote and/or recommend them. Kinda like the Ford or Chevy thing.

Re: DSLR 4 Me

ebiggs1 — Thu, 03 Oct 2013 13:32:59 GMT

"I've owned Tokina lenses & was very satisfied with them"

I should have qualified my statement with the "specific lens" comparison. I am sure a given specific lens can be very good and I myself have seen some.

But as a general rule, I stand firmly by my above post. Now, of course, to each his own. I hope you have good luck and usage from yours.

The Tokina 24-70 ATX PRO or PRO II are pretty nice glass. I will not buy one but they are pretty good lenses.

And to ever consider buying any of these 3rd party lenses used is a crap shoot at best. You better know it's past.

Re: DSLR 4 Me

TCampbell — Thu, 03 Oct 2013 13:50:23 GMT

Ohaganrh,

Ignore what the ISO can be dialed up to. The max ISO is never very good. I tend to shoot at ISO 800 with my 60Da to keep the noise in check. The image stacking software will try to eliminate the noise, but the rule is the noise can be reduced by a factor of the square root of the number of frames (light frames) you shot.

E.g. shoot 2 frames, you can reduce noise by some amount.

Shoot 4, you can reduce noise by twice as much

Shoot 9, you can reduce the noise by a factor of 3

Shoot 16, you can reduce the noise by a factor of 4

You get the idea... and most guys I know say they don't see a whole lot of improvement by going beyond 25 subs.

Image "acquisition" is half the problem in astrophotography, then learning how to do image "processing" is the other half. It's much more complex than processing regular images.

The Canon 60Da has an IR filter, but it has a steep cut off into the IR so it leaves most of the visible spectrum (and the all important Hydrogen alpha wavelength) alone. The camera collects more light in less time than a traditional camera because 90% of the atoms in the universe are hydrogen atoms and the Ha wavelength is the most common.

If you use a 60Da to take normal daytime shots you end up with _very_ warm photos. You can compensate by by white balance, but the out of the camera photos will always appear much too warm.

If you remove the IR filter (btw, if you buy a used Rebel and just want to do this yourself, the Gary Honis website has step-by-step instructions for several Canon bodies) you can buy a filter from Astronomik to allow you to use the camera for normal photography. Just go to Google and type in "Gary Honis astrophotography" and you'll find it. While most people who plan to modify the body buy a used body, just be warned that the procedure to modify the camera is invasive and definitely falls into the category of "doing this will void your warranty" (just in case you found a new-enough body that it still has a warranty).

Astronomik makes a Canon "snap in" filter that cleverly installs inside the body in front of the mirror. They call this the OWB (which stands for Original White Balance). Astronomik makes _very_ good filters. The "catch" is that with the filter snapped in, the camera can't use EF-S lenses because the rear-most element on an EF-S lens protrudes slightly into the camera body and would hit the filter.

Canon is the preferred DSLR for AP work because it has the broadest support.

Backyard EOS is one of the most popular programs on Windows for Canon owners and they of course only support Canon.

I use Nebulosity on the Mac. Nebulosity supports lots of CCD imaging cameras designed for AP, but on their list of DSLR cameras is just one entry... Canon. No Nikon, Sony, Pentax, etc. It's all Canon.

This is why the AP community tells you to get a Canon. It's what everybody uses (if they use a DSLR at all) and it's what all the software supports.

Every DSLR will have the ability to do white balance, bulb manual etc. etc. That wont be a problem. But you'll quickly learn that you NEED to shoot in RAW and only in RAW for AP. You need as much bit depth as you can possibly get because the images need massive amounts of processing.

I highly recommend that if you're a Windows user, you get Backyard EOS (not free... but cheap and it really simplifies the image acquisition.) Basically you'll put the camera in bulb mode, connect the USB cable to the computer, and let the software drive everything on your camera.