opinions on these two?

[ajohnw]

There is a big difference between the Canon 12mp sensor and the 16mp one used in the Nikon.

See here: http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compa...(brand2)/Canon

Also

The EOS T3/1100D is an entry level camera with many features missing whereas the D5100 is a class up meaning you'd get more life from it. It has a vari-angle screen which is fantastic, it's faster, has better AF, full HD video and if you handle both side-by-side you'd find it has a better viewfinder and superior build. I'm not saying the Canon isn't a good camera but at this price the Nikon wins hands down.

It's always best to add in my opinion or I would go for to quotes like that and frankly review sites like that are useless. Better to look at one that does test cameras such as Dpreview. That way you will see if the untra high iso is really worth having and a number of other things as well.

John
-

John
-

[Black Pearl]

You've just done exactly what you chastised against and offered an opinion - without backing it up in any way as I did I may add.

dxomark is a very highly regarded site that 'actually test' photographic equipment so posting a link to their comparison is entirely valid and in no way less so than a link to review site like dpreview. In fact manufacturers (like Zeiss have at the bottom of their new Otus) often link to dxomark when they launch a new product to show how good it is in a direct comparison to other brands.

Their is a quantifiable difference between the 12mp Canon sensor and the 16mp one used in the D5100.
The screen is a vari-angle one...its larger and higher res too.
It is faster - 4fps against 3 on the Canon.
It does have superior AF.
It does have Full HD and not 720.
And if you take the time to handle both cameras (I used to sell them so I have on countless occasions) you would find the viewfinder on the D5100 is better and the plastics have a nicer feel to them.

You may believe all those facts are opinion but they are valid none the less.

[Donald]

I have to agree with Robin, John and suggest that your statement that a site like dxomark is useless is highly misleading to someone who may not be as experienced as some of us and who is seeking to learn what reliable resources exist to help them.

It's fine to have opinion, but that needs to be based on some evidence.

You may not find a resource such as dxomark helpful. Many, many others would not agree.

[ajohnw]

My apologies to Robin. Perhaps I should explain. I did take a quick look on Dpreview and found what I expected. Up to 6400 iso Canon leads on noise apart from chroma where Nikon does have a slight advantage above 1600 ISO. Also on this model Canon have introduced HTP which cures one of Canon's bug bears compared with others. It basically yields another stop at the the bright end. As far as HTP goes and signs of better tonal gradation they only apply to jpg's out of the camera. Dynamic range of cameras is usually specified on what the manufactures manage to cram into a jpg. Raw is a different matter and results are very likely to be similar so only noise counts really.

One other aspect of course was the bag and partly the card. A decent bag will add to the cost.

John
-

[nimitzbenedicto]

............. and frankly review sites like that are useless. Better to look at one that does test cameras such as Dpreview. .....
John
-

Perhaps, to be fair, John can explain why he posted

............. and frankly review sites like that are useless.

Thanks

[ajohnw]

Perhaps, to be fair, John can explain why he posted



Thanks

A bit of a reaction as review sites like that do little to educate the buying public. Talking purely ISO having mostly decided what setting to use in the camera I use most at the moment I notice that ISO can go up to 25500.. Would I expect it to work well at that - no, very far from it but that makes little difference to many manufacturers. All do it to a certain extent. Basically I might try that setting for a laugh.

I noticed landscape dynamic range. Bit meaningless as cameras extend that by playing with what are called tone curves. It's inevitable that this involves extensions into the dark end of things. Fine but the tones will be reproduced in a manner that is so far from being realistic that there is little point in having them. Same applies at the light end. Canon have just joined in with that by adding the new mode. Fortunately what they can do at that end is far more limited - so far. Nikon have been doing it for ages and review sites like the one mentioned encourage manufacturers to do likewise. Actually I feel some at each end is a good idea but remember this all applies to jpg's. The tone curve in raw is purely up to the user and noise does matter.

Some one recently asked about a Canon and a Panasonic. I use micro 4/3 but wouldn't point a new comer at it unless they were concerned about weight of the kit. The Canon offers much firmer ground for a beginner. I'm inclined to feel the same here as well. At the risk of treading on Nikon users toes it''s worth remembering that Nikon were king and then came along Canon with digital. My feeling is that in general over all terms they still lead in terms of sensors. By that I mean real usability rather than specmanship. That from a died in the wool Nikon man. It seems Nikon have decided to switch to Sony sensors. As I am currently using one I feel that they still have some way to go to catch Canon up but probably are better than what Panasonic can produce at the moment.

Dpreview does go into some detail about how cameras perform but even they don't spell out what this means in practice. They probably wouldn't get any more cameras to test if they did.

Part of me hates reviews that just churn out camera spec numbers because as they continue to do this things can only get worse.

Not going into pixel counts as it would take too long. More basically does not always mean better. Many who have compacts may already be aware of that. Yet more specmanship.

John
-

[Didace]

This little spat is somewhat amusing considering DPReview uses DXOMark for lens reviews.

[FootLoose]

One silly thought. Canon are always offering cash back deals this time of year in the UK. Guess they have a way of not giving these on really discounted items but might be worth a look.

John
-

Be wary of Canon prices. They are offering significant cash back deals here too, but that still leaves their prices a few hundred dollars dearer than on-line retailers.

[hopeg]

Okay, I honestly am a little confused with some of the previous replies, BUT I have another question, the lenses that come with the Nikon camera are described as "non-VR" but it appears that the vibration reduction is on the camera itself. Are non-VR lenses bad or should I be okay with them as a beginner? Here's part of the info on the camera kit...

[Black Pearl]

The camera doesn't have any VR built in. On Nikon DSLR's it is lens based only.

VR is useful but remember photographers managed without it for quite some time and still managed to take great pictures.

[nimitzbenedicto]

Okay, I honestly am a little confused with some of the previous replies, BUT I have another question, the lenses that come with the Nikon camera are described as "non-VR" but it appears that the vibration reduction is on the camera itself. Are non-VR lenses bad or should I be okay with them as a beginner? Here's part of the info on the camera kit...

Hi Hope,

That's a good combination of lens for beginners.
18-55mm, plus 55-200mm. VR a.k.a. Vibration Reduction is ok.
If the kit says " no VR" , maybe you can ask the dealer you just want to buy the Nikon D5100 body.

Then, get 18-55mm, and 55-200mm with VR online.

Here are 2 quotes from Adorama and Amazon.
( I got my 55-200mm VR refurbished =$120.00 and it works just fine.
My 18-55mm came along with the Nikon D3100 body. )

AMAZON new from $246.95 ; used from $86.33 42 and refurbished from $114.00
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-55-200mm.../dp/B000O161X0

Adorama $246.95
http://www.adorama.com/NK55200VRU.html

Btw, you can also check for refurbished 18-55mm at those outlets.

Later on, if you want to and have funds, you can sell these and buy more expensive lens. Ex. 10-34mm, and/or the 35mm.

Hope this helps.

[ajohnw]

That aspect would most definitely switch me to the Canon. You will need it on the longer lens. Personally having used cameras without image stabilisation I would be happy without it on the 18-55. The 55-200mm is another matter. At 200mm it is equivalent 320mm on full frame camera and that focal length would make most people reach for a tripod unless conditions were very bright and would still wonder even then.

To give you some idea 135mm lenses used to be very popular as most could shoot without a tripod under "normal" conditions. Out doors in reasonable light in other words.That's 85mm on the cameras you are looking at.

Looks like there are no free lunches on bargains like these. There isn't on high iso's either. I'm amazed that Nikon would offer a kit like that. I don't think any one who knows even a little about using cameras would buy it as it just places too many limitations on what they can do. Best look carefully at what comes with the Canon. With them though I would be even more amazed.

The cash back deals in the UK are generally aimed at official dealers being able to get much closer to the prices some who aren't offer. Things aren't as clear cut though these days. The guarantees from the other type of dealer were often not so good as a main agent's. My OMD-EM5 came with the usual reduced 12month guarantee, not so cheap as none, along with an extra 2 years purchased separately.

John
-

[nimitzbenedicto]

That aspect would most definitely switch me to the Canon. John
-

Hi John,

Can you furnish us concrete info/specs about what Canon camera/lens you have.
Specifically, your Canon 18-55mm and 55-200mm lens .

Plus some sample pics you took with your Canon cameras/lens (with exif).

This way we can see exactly what you mean with actual/real pics and info.

Thanks

[ajohnw]

No I can't. I don't upgrade my gear very often. Was going to recently but went micro 4/3 instead. However ancient image stability 300mm on APS = 480mm full frame accounting for the crop factor 70-300mm zoom



Another



Another



That one is a little unusual. Best focal plain is slightly in front of the flower to get more blur on the leaves.

The boat shot will expand to show a 100% cropped image. None are what I would call great shots but are of interest. Eg slight white clipping on the guinea fowl. The boat shot needs more pp really to get past the slight mist problems. The flower shot in an odd sort of way relates to hyperfocal distance.

I haven't used either of my Canons for over 18 months and these are all I can get at quickly as I recently updated my machine. Why 300D rather than 5D. 6mp for one reason and it's the one I used most often.

I am sure if some one asks for shots from the specific Canon lenses as a new thread they should get lots posted. The above are from late film lenses bought new with the 300D. Kit lenses at that time were a bad idea assuming pixel counts would go up which they were bound to. Kit lenses tend to keep reasonably in pace with pixel counts. In fact in some ways when people consider buying L lenses the main reason really should be faster apertures as the other gains are likely to be smaller than most realise. The same applies to replacements in the S range.

John
-

[Sponge]

I think we need to be careful when steering someone into a buying decision. I looked into the Canon kit that Walmart is offering and the lenses it includes are the EF-S 18-55mm IS II and 75-300mm III lenses (not the 55-200mm). That 75-300mm III lens does not have IS and is the lens that most would agree would benefit the most from it. So as far as lenses are concerned neither of the Nikon's has VR and only the Canon 18-55 has it.

I've heard it said a few times and I agree that one should buy the best camera they can afford. In my opinion that would be the Nikon but of course that's just my opinion and I don't have either so take it for what it's worth.

Here are the links for the two kits for anyone who's interested:
http://www.walmart.com/ip/Canon-12.2...7B076/29390242
http://www.walmart.com/ip/Nikon-16.2-MP-13246/30154605

[mknittle]

I think we need to be careful when steering someone into a buying decision. I looked into the Canon kit that Walmart is offering and the lenses it includes are the EF-S 18-55mm IS II and 75-300mm III lenses (not the 55-200mm). That 75-300mm III lens does not have IS and is the lens that most would agree would benefit the most from it. So as far as lenses are concerned neither of the Nikon's has VR and only the Canon 18-55 has it.

I've heard it said a few times and I agree that one should buy the best camera they can afford. In my opinion that would be the Nikon but of course that's just my opinion and I don't have either so take it for what it's worth.

Here are the links for the two kits for anyone who's interested:
http://www.walmart.com/ip/Canon-12.2...7B076/29390242
http://www.walmart.com/ip/Nikon-16.2-MP-13246/30154605

The 75-300 being what it is I still say Nikon. If it were the 55-250 it would be six of one half a dozen of the other.

[ajohnw]

Good grief is all I can say to that. Price wise the difference is 90 quid as against 200+. for the lens. The 90 quid one will be worthless on the 2nd hand market unless some one bought it who wasn't aware of the problems. That's what these kits seem to be intended for. Many might find it difficult to use a lens like that at 300mm even on a monopod.

I think I would be inclined to forget both and look on ebay The 2nd hand market can be good too when they come with a reasonable guarantee. There are also items like this one ebay 121219198746. That does happen but true new other and refurbished are always worth looking for especially manufacturer refurbished. Sometimes there are flood of the latter when a model is about to be replaced or shortly after. They are generally just mail order returns. Decent camera shops often offer a good guarantee on used cameras and people upgrade often so the cheaper end is not a bad idea. On the other hand my 5D was bought used. I am well aware that a new shutter would cost me £200. For all I know it might have taken the 100,000 shots.

I'm not too keen on picking cameras for others either. Canon - Nikon? I go back to my 1st post. One has a bag and has a card. These cost money. ISO only mentioned because it cropped up and can be miss leading. Especially on an OMD EM5 but on the other hand I don't know how they have done it. When I set a long exposures the camera takes a lot of shorter ones and then adds them up it might just do the same with ISO. The shorter shots added up sounds great but for what I wanted the exposures for they were too short to capture the light I wanted from the milky way.

Buy the best camera that some one can afford? Depends on what some one regards as best and the market place really doesn't help in that respect.

John
-

[Black Pearl]

Both kits offer fantastic value for money, both kits come with great quality lenses, both kits will give a budding photographer years of excellent service and both kits will produce pin sharp photographs in a vast range of circumstances.

You don't need IS/VR on a lens if you are aware of some very basic rules and everyone managed without it for far, far longer than we have had the technology available. You don't need to use a monopod and you certainly don't need to use a tripod to get a good photograph.

If you are very aware of the various models, their history along side the rivals brands and their capabilities against newer models then buying used is a great option but for a first time buyer it may not be a simple one.

My opinion hasn't changed and I still say the D5100 offered in the OP is the best buy for the price. The camera is outstanding with a tried and well respected sensor, the same sensor as the more expensive D7000, the same one used in many of Sony (who make it) Alpha and NEX models and even the same as the one used in a range of Pentax DSLR's. It is feature rich with a vary-angle screen that gives extra scope for unusual angles and subjects, the Full HD Video is great for using with the family and the two 'kit' lenses offer excellent performance on a tight budget.

[ajohnw]

I am really surprised that you would say that about a lens that can reach 300mm without image stability on an APS camera. I have used kit without IS. The basic rule is 1/focal length secs exposure setting for full frame or in this case 1.6 times the focal length so roughly 1/500 sec or faster. Trouble is this is some what dependent on the distance to the subject and on lenses that long people have been known to have problems even at 1/500 or faster so most would ideally be looking for a lens with tripod bush on it because if it hasn't it wont balancewell on a mono or tripod.

Curiously some one more or less gave me a 400mm prime last year without IS as they had given up on it. The way he put it was that he had produce a few good shots. Very few. He had taken a lot with it.. I took a monopod for him to try and that didn't work out well either. Ok a longer lens but most of the shots were un usable at any size. This one does have a tripod bush so can realistically be put on a tripod where it belongs.

The same style kits are all over the place in some of the "larger" dealers in the UK too. There are some comments about saying it's a great lens, some suggesting brace oneself on something. Most mention IS. Be interesting to see what happens as more of them are sold - if ever.

John
-

[Black Pearl]

1/500 sec or faster?

From the CiC Tutorial - Understanding Camera Lenses:

A common rule of thumb for estimating how fast the exposure needs to be for a given focal length is the one over focal length rule. This states that for a 35 mm camera, the exposure time needs to be at least as fast as one over the focal length in seconds. In other words, when using a 200 mm focal length on a 35 mm camera, the exposure time needs to be at least 1/200 seconds — otherwise blurring may be hard to avoid. See the tutorial on reducing camera shake with hand-held photos for more on this topic.

Keep in mind that this rule is just for rough guidance; some may be able to hand hold a shot for much longer or shorter times. For users of digital cameras with cropped sensors, one needs to convert into a 35 mm equivalent focal length.

The lens in question is a AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED.
Used on a Nikon D5100 with a 1.5x crop factor that gives the equivalent focal length of 300mm so a rough guidance would be 1/300 sec.
It is worth baring in mind that Nikon offer an excellent Auto ISO feature where the minimum ISO, the maximum ISO and the minimum shutter speed can all be specified: