DSLR's my head is spinng !

[Phil V]

....
Been looking at some sample images of all the mentioned cameras and comparing them to the mid to high end models and its pretty hard to notice any difference. Sore head now members

You'll not see a major difference between the models by looking at the spec's - pick them up and use them. Frankly I couldn't use one of the lower end cameras simply because the user interface is so slow in comparison.

To a photographer, a 4 year old model with lower megapixel count and better low light performance / ergonomics is a no-brainer. Again, you need to understand the camera as a tool - like a guitarist or a chef - better older gear beats new cheaper gear every time. For me, with your budget I'd buy 2nd hand, get a 20d, the newer IS kit lens a nifty and a flashgun.

 

[heidfirst]

But I do agree about the slagging of high ISO on some DSLR's, I've printed 1600 from a 300d and given the choice between that and 400 film (effectively no photo), it's just a joke. But then many people who only picked up their first DSLR 2 years ago would tell me that I shouldn't be charging money to shoot with a 40d because it's a pile of cr@p.

I started with 35mm sLRs back in the 70s & I quite agreee - the youth of today don't know how lucky they are (I'm only half joking).

 

[Dave *]

Seen the 5500D with 18-55mm IS Lens today, quite impressed then they said we also have the 600D for £12 more :bonk: They recommended a new lens (Canon EF 50mm f1.8 MK2) on both cameras as the one in the kit is not the best Anyone have any views on the standard kit 18-55mm IS Lens ?

But never had any in stock till next weekend, I think we might have a winner here.... the 600D

The 18-55IS kit lens is actually a very good lens, definitely worth having, and the 50mm f1.8 is a very good addition for you, it is most definitely not a replacement for the 18-55. You will need the wider end of the zoom for group shots or architectural shots (think pics of the the church for example).

I've got to agree Shayne. the 550d is horrible above 800 really. it's not 'terrible' at 1600, but not really useable...

:shrug:
Do you have any proof to back your assertion up? I have never heard anyone say the 550D is "horrible" above 800, considering the similarities of the sensor in the 550D to the 7D are you claiming the 7D as horrible above 800 as well.

As an example, DPReview sums the 550D up as follows:

The EOS 550D offers excellent image quality in a range of different conditions, including exceptionally low light, thanks to its usable ISO 12800 setting. Image quality is equal or better than its predecessor the EOS 500D, and not noticeably inferior to the considerably more expensive EOS 7D.

 

[heidfirst]

"Originally Posted by Orange_crunch
....
Been looking at some sample images of all the mentioned cameras and comparing them to the mid to high end models and its pretty hard to notice any difference."
You'll not see a major difference between the models by looking at the spec's - pick them up and use them. Frankly I couldn't use one of the lower end cameras simply because the user interface is so slow in comparison.

Not surprising really - e.g. if you look at Canon's APS-C models 6 of them all use essentially the same sensor albeit no doubt with some tweaking to the processing.
What does vary as you pay more are features, ergonomic improvements (e.g. 2nd control wheel) & build quality/weather-proofing.
& as Phil V says most experienced photographers on a limited budget will go with a 1 or 2 generation older better handling camera & better glass.

 

[Orange_crunch]

I think its come to a point that most modern DSLR's are more or less the same in each price bracket :shrug: as a first time DLSR buyer its all very overwhelming. You can spend hours reading review after review or watching the latest youtube clips and still be just as confused if not a little more.
The canon 600D just felt right... and the Nikon a very close second, the Sony felt a little odd and didn't feel secure when taking a photo.
Another point is most sales staff don't have a clue what they are telling you just see the £££££££ signs when they see a newbie.

 

[heidfirst]

the Sony felt a little odd and didn't feel secure when taking a photo.

did you try an A57 as well?
The A37 is a small body, the A57 is noticeably bigger as well as being better featured.

Another point is most sales staff don't have a clue what they are telling you

unfortunately this is very true (especially in the large chains of consumer electronics stores) - with the research that you have done you probably now know more than they do!

 

[Dave *]

The canon 600D just felt right...

If you like the feel, the EOS 500D and 550D are pretty much identical ergonomic wise (minus the screen) and the 650D as well, so budget wise there's quite a spread.

 

[ernesto]

you've really got to ask yourself what you need the camera to do and not fall into the trap that I must have the newer one because it must be better. The basics of what a camera needs to do can be found in DSLRs going way back.
As the years go by more features get added, MP goes up etc,. but most changes won't actually make the photos any better. For example having video on a camera obviously doesn't make the still images any better and if you don't use video it adds nothing. If you do use video then the older camera won't cut it and so on.

 

[Orange_crunch]

did you try an A57 as well?
The A37 is a small body, the A57 is noticeably bigger as well as being better featured.


unfortunately this is very true (especially in the large chains of consumer electronics stores) - with the research that you have done you probably now know more than they do!

Nobody seemed to stock the A57 only the A37 and the a A380, I will be going in to town on sat to see what deals I can get.
The most common answers from sales assistants were more pixels the better photo is, or its best to go for a mid-to semi pro DSLR as these are future proof One even said I should get a Fujifilm FinePix, no lens to worry about and it looks the part and only £129

 

[shaylou]

Seen the 5500D with 18-55mm IS Lens today, quite impressed then they said we also have the 600D for £12 more :bonk: They recommended a new lens (Canon EF 50mm f1.8 MK2) on both cameras as the one in the kit is not the best Anyone have any views on the standard kit 18-55mm IS Lens ?

But never had any in stock till next weekend, I think we might have a winner here.... the 600D

I have the 600d and over all I really like it. The flip out screen is very nice, I use it all of the time. The image quality is good on iso 100-200 and drops a bit at 400. After 400 there is a noticeable difference (not exceptionable to me). Some will tell you that you can go way up on the iso and yes you can but whats the point if you want like the image quality. Point is, I would not recommend you buy a crop sensor dslr based on how high it will go up on iso. I'm not sure if this is standard on entry level units but one thing I dont like is the fact that you can only increase the iso as a factor of double. 100, 200, 400 and so on. It would be nice to have the option to increase the iso by 50 or even 25 at times to keep the noise down. I looked at the nikon 5100 and it was close to becoming the winner for me but the Canon just felt better and I liked the lenses better as well. I recomend this if it feels good in your hand. One last thing, it is expensive but the 17-55 2.8 lens is a great combo for this camera. It is a great all purpose lens, wide enough for landscapes and long enough for street photos. That lens rarely comes off my camera.

 

[shaylou]

Nobody seemed to stock the A57 only the A37 and the a A380, I will be going in to town on sat to see what deals I can get.
The most common answers from sales assistants were more pixels the better photo is, or its best to go for a mid-to semi pro DSLR as these are future proof One even said I should get a Fujifilm FinePix, no lens to worry about and it looks the part and only £129

This goes to show you that your not only better off knowing what you want before you go into the store, chances are that you will get bad info from the sales person. There are three major stores where I'm from and two of them have a world of experience but those are the two stores that I repeatedly get the most bad advise from. I rely on the forum for my advise now and will continue to do so.

 

[shaylou]

The 18-55IS kit lens is actually a very good lens, definitely worth having, and the 50mm f1.8 is a very good addition for you, it is most definitely not a replacement for the 18-55. You will need the wider end of the zoom for group shots or architectural shots (think pics of the the church for example).

:shrug:
Do you have any proof to back your assertion up? I have never heard anyone say the 550D is "horrible" above 800, considering the similarities of the sensor in the 550D to the 7D are you claiming the 7D as horrible above 800 as well.

As an example, DPReview sums the 550D up as follows:

Of course I have proof. I went as far as to test my 600d at the different iso's and examined to pics. And btw I only mentioned 600d and nikon 5100 because those are the only two slr's that I actually tested.

 

[oldnick]

I treat the body as the desposable bit and upgrade every generation. I've got a D3100 and utterly love it. Coupled with a 35mm 1.8 lens its an unbeatable lightweight, low light camera. Its a truely great camera, however looking forwards to a D3200.

 

[Orange_crunch]

I treat the body as the desposable bit and upgrade every generation. I've got a D3100 and utterly love it. Coupled with a 35mm 1.8 lens its an unbeatable lightweight, low light camera. Its a truely great camera, however looking forwards to a D3200.

Very close call with the Nikon D3200 who knows if the price is right.....Ok have to stop changing my mind now

 

[samems]

Money to burn then?

 

[Orange_crunch]

Money to burn then?

Sticking with the D600, I really cant see any camera being better in the under £550 range, unless I go in to the used market.
On another note...
Does anyone have a link to some D600 ( or any other camera mentioned) photos with the poor iso levels ?

 

[Dave *]

Sticking with the D600, I really cant see any camera being better in the under £550 range, unless I go in to the used market.
On another note...
Does anyone have a link to some D600 ( or any other camera mentioned) photos with the poor iso levels ?

The 600D has a 50 page image thread on POTN, there are sure to be high ISO images amongst them

Photography on the Net EOS600D T3i thread

Had a look at the first few pages, this post has an ISO 800 image, and this post is ISO 1600.

 

[heidfirst]

Sticking with the D600, I really cant see any camera being better in the under £550 range, unless I go in to the used market.

it depends what you value e.g. the Nikon D3200 has more pixelsl, the Sony will annihilate the others for fps, Liveview & AF in video & so on - they all have pros & cons.

On another note...
Does anyone have a link to some D600 ( or any other camera mentioned) photos with the poor iso levels ?

when looking at samples remember that if you are pixel-peeping at 1:1 then when viewing photos from cameras with more pixels that you are looking at a smaller, more magnified area than for a camera with fewer pixels.
& because it's magnified even the same level of noise will look worse - you either want to downres the higher cameras to the level of the lower or upres the lower to the higher to level the field.
& noise that will show up on a monitor may well not if you are printing.

You might find this interesting http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Ca...brand2)/Sony/(appareil3)/692|0/(brand3)/Canon (personally I take DxO with a grain of salt ).

Also http://www.dpreview.com/products/co...00d&products=nikon_d3200&products=sony_slta57

 

[shaylou]

Sticking with the D600, I really cant see any camera being better in the under £550 range, unless I go in to the used market.
On another note...
Does anyone have a link to some D600 ( or any other camera mentioned) photos with the poor iso levels ?

I can't help but laugh a little about your question. I dont know about the others but I delete bad pics. Well most of them.

 

[ernesto]

The most common answers from sales assistants were more pixels the better photo is, or its best to go for a mid-to semi pro DSLR as these are future proof One even said I should get a Fujifilm FinePix, no lens to worry about and it looks the part and only £129

You need to challenge the sales assistants. Ask them to explain why a photo from a camera with 18mp is better than a camera with 12mp and watch them squirm.
Not sure there is a way of future proofing in the very fast moving world of digital cameras as there is no way of knowing what will be available in 5 years time and whether the extras even matter to you.

 

[Orange_crunch]

I can't help but laugh a little about your question. I dont know about the others but I delete bad pics. Well most of them.

:shrug: I just thought it might help anyone looking for a DSLR as almost everyone starts talking about noisy ISO levels. Some say don't shoot over 400 and other say its higher, I thought it would be nice to see a cameras weak points. Almost everyone bangs on about how many great certain models are and lets face it over here in the UK we have lots of poor light conditions situations, and rubbish weather.
I am just trying to cover all bases before purchasing.

You need to challenge the sales assistants. Ask them to explain why a photo from a camera with 18mp is better than a camera with 12mp and watch them squirm.
Not sure there is a way of future proofing in the very fast moving world of digital cameras as there is no way of knowing what will be available in 5 years time and whether the extras even matter to you.

Leaps and bounds..... watch me get the sales assistant on their first day in the job they will be straight on the sick .

 

[Dave *]

:shrug: I just thought it might help anyone looking for a DSLR as almost everyone starts talking about noisy ISO levels. Some say don't shoot over 400 and other say its higher,.

read the DP Review as a start

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos600d

I use ISO1600 with a 500D (which I find superior to ISO 800 on m4/3rds) and the 550D/600D has better noise control, you should have no issue with using ISO1600 or even ISO3200.

The links I posted earlier include a ISO1600 image which doesn't look all that noisy.
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/I4-g_gW7-LvGrATDf-rCQtn8k_UQvj8VFKNLwoknWUY?feat=directlink

 

[samems]

Cant understand those that say they have noise issues over 400?

 

[ernesto]

I suppose it depends on what someone sees as an issue. Will there be more noise at 1600 than 100, yes definitely. Is it an 'issue', that depends on the person

 

[Dave *]

Cant understand those that say they have noise issues over 400?

Me neither, I can't remember seeing a review ever complaining of poor ISO performance at ISO 400 or above on the 550D/600D/7D sensor.

 

[samems]

Maybe some people are looking at pics zoomed in by 500% lol

 

[Dave *]

Of course I have proof. I went as far as to test my 600d at the different iso's and examined to pics. And btw I only mentioned 600d and nikon 5100 because those are the only two slr's that I actually tested.

Your personal opinion does not constitute proof, and it is not what you as an individual think of images taken on your specific camera. That is called a personal opinion NOT proof.

Your personal use is too easily influenced by user error on your part, for example, under exposing images could easily cause "horrible" noise at any ISO (your results could even be caused by a faulty camera or lens if they really are "horrible").

I'll ask again, do you have any proof?

As in links to reputable reviewers or websites, or magazine group tests showing that at least one experienced and reputable reviewer finds anything above ISO400 to be "horrible".

 

[samems]

Plus a naff TFT can make shots look naff too!

 

[Orange_crunch]

I do know one think plenty haters out there for different makes of DSLR cameras...
Great photo and link Dave1
I think I will be very happy with the 600D

Thank you for all everyone's view and opinions you all stars
Cant wait to get started.

 

[Dave *]

Plus a naff TFT can make shots look naff too!

True, a lot of people will look at an image on a laptop screen with the screen angled right back and then wonder why the picture colours looks off. There are so many variables it's impossible in normal day to day use to be able to give a totally equivocal opinion.

I do know one think plenty haters out there for different makes of DSLR cameras...
Great photo and link Dave1
I think I will be very happy with the 600D

I'm sure you will, Canon isn't the market leader by building bad cameras (and Nikon are chewing at their heels for the same reason).

As has been said, you can't get a bad DSLR anymore, all are capable of good results, the benefit of going for the biggest means you are more likely to find cheaper second hand accessories (and compared to Sony, Pentax etc, more likely to find new accessories actually in stock in brick and mortar stores to try/buy in the future. For example, for low light, the Canon 50mm f1.8 is in good supply for £50-£60 second hand, £80 new, you'll struggle to find the same for most other makes.

The first camera body is usually just the starting point in a long ( expensive) road

 

[shaylou]

read the DP Review as a start

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos600d

I use ISO1600 with a 500D (which I find superior to ISO 800 on m4/3rds) and the 550D/600D has better noise control, you should have no issue with using ISO1600 or even ISO3200.

The links I posted earlier include a ISO1600 image which doesn't look all that noisy.
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/I4-g_gW7-LvGrATDf-rCQtn8k_UQvj8VFKNLwoknWUY?feat=directlink

Are you actually stating that iso 1600 has less noise than iso 400????

 

[shaylou]

Are you actually stating that iso 1600 has less noise than iso 400????

Sorry I meant 800 iso.

 

[Dave *]

Are you actually stating that iso 1600 has less noise than iso 400????

You've lost me there, what I was saying is, I happily use ISO 1600 on my 500D, I find it to be better than ISO 800 on all the m4/3rds bodies I have used.

The 550D and 600D have better ISO capability than the 500D according to every review and test I have seen, hence should be better at higher ISO, for example at ISO 3200.

Hope that's clearer.

 

[shaylou]

You've lost me there, what I was saying is, I happily use ISO 1600 on my 500D, I find it to be better than ISO 800 on all the m4/3rds bodies I have used.

The 550D and 600D have better ISO capability than the 500D according to every review and test I have seen, hence should be better at higher ISO, for example at ISO 3200.

Hope that's clearer.

Oh okay I got you now. When it comes to " acceptable" noise level it comes down to personal preference. I don't find it acceptable at 1600 or even 800 in most cases. 400 is ok but I stay around 100-200 for almost everything or look for more light. To each is own....

 

[samems]

Oh okay I got you now. When it comes to " acceptable" noise level it comes down to personal preference. I don't find it acceptable at 1600 or even 800 in most cases. 400 is ok but I stay around 100-200 for almost everything or look for more light. To each is own....

Thing is, you are living in the USA!! lol

 

[Dave *]

Oh okay I got you now. When it comes to " acceptable" noise level it comes down to personal preference. I don't find it acceptable at 1600 or even 800 in most cases. 400 is ok but I stay around 100-200 for almost everything or look for more light. To each is own....

No it isn't "personal preference", I am beginning to suspect you are just trying to be obtuse and argumentative.

I specifically said

according to every review and test I have seen

I already said similar in an earlier post when your "proof" to verify claims of poor iso performance were all based on your own "testing".

I would actually go as far as to say I doubt that there is a current DSLR from any manufacturer that won't produce a usable print at iso 800.

 

[wyx087]

not sure what you guys are talking about, my D3100 produces web usable photos at ISO 3200, printable (tested at 7x5) photos at ISO 1600, and almost noise free photos at ISO 800.

eg:
http://wyx.x10.mx/phpa/main.php?cmd=imageview&var1=_DSC3324.jpg

comparing ISO performance is pointless TBH. go in to the shops and feel which camera feels best in your hand, which camera's button configuration you prefer. do you prefer a toggling ISO button or one you hold down? (Canon is a toggle button next to dial, Nikon you hold down ISO button while using the dial)

 

[Dave *]

not sure what you guys are talking about, my D3100 produces web usable photos at ISO 3200, printable (tested at 7x5) photos at ISO 1600, and almost noise free photos at ISO 800.

Thanks for the input with regard to Nikon, I'm beginning to lean towards user error for shaylou who can't get a decent pic at ISO 800, it might be worth his while uploading some examples so other users can comment.

To prove the point, here are some ISO 800 images straight from my 500D and uploaded to Flickr by iPad.

and an aesthetically terrible image at 1600

 

[samems]

I cant see any noise but i can hear it from the 2nd house on the left!! lol

 

[Dave *]

I cant see any noise but i can hear it from the 2nd house on the left!! lol

Oi that's a landmark photo, look carefully and among all the clouds there is a mythical thing called "blue sky", treasure the look, we probably won't see it again for who knows how long .