Which DSLR would give me better photos (with the kit lens and with better available lenses)?

[PhotographyBuff]

Trying to decide between the Canon 600D and the Nikon D3200, do I believe this?:

http://www.dpreview.com/products/co...3200&products=canon_eos600d&sortDir=ascending

or this?:

http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon-600d-vs-Nikon-D3200

Why that difference in judgement between the two websites? Who is right? Or is it possibly due to the lenses used, with the cameras being of similarly good quality? Or do each of the judgements use different criteria?

I hope that someone who has had experience with both cameras can give their opinion. I have also included a poll. I have so far put off buying a DSLR. I wonder if I am really missing something. And if I actually make the investment and buy one, I would want to choose the best one, not to go on missing the potentially better one because of a poor choice. What is most important to me is the image quality (including dynamic range, colours, and sharpness) and the degree of control I would have on it. Also, I would want one that is able to capture good photos in low light conditions as well as good video.

 

[Musicman]

Why that difference in judgement between the two websites? Who is right? Or is it possibly due to the lenses used, with the cameras being of similarly good quality? Or do each of the judgements use different criteria?

Well

a) I'd put no faith in Snapsort's comparison, as it's done by robots to generate ad revenue. There are factual inaccuracies, for example, the 600D has no focus motor built into the body. This is probably because all Canon EF lenses have an AF motor built in (which you may reasonably argue has nearly the same net effect but it is not correct).

b) DP review's percentage rankings are based on their comparison with the market at the time of review, so it is perfectly possible the 600D scored better in 2011 than it would have in 2012, when the D3200 was reviewed.

c) DP Review's percentages are merely a guide - they don't allow you to say 'this camera is objectively better than the other'

If that were true, you might consider buying an Olympus EM-1, Sony A7R or Fuji S20 instead, as they all score as well as or significantly better than the 600D

http://www.dpreview.com/products/co...3200&products=canon_eos600d&sortDir=ascending

However, it's not, and simple percentages and automated comparisons don't tell you how well each camera is suited for your use.

Objective advice: visit a real camera shop. Try them both out to see which one suits you in your hands. If you like either of the cameras, buy it from that shop, not elsewhere online.

 

[Phiggys]

Go handle them for yourself manufacturers don't make bad cameras these days they wouldn't survive in todays competitive market.there is no best camera it's down to the one that feels right for you.
I would also look at some of the other offerings from Fuji,Sony,Pentax, Sony,Panasonic to name but a few.

 

[pingu666]

yeah go handle em, the sonys have evf instead of optical viewfinder, which I quite like, and pentax's are often really good value.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

And if I actually make the investment and buy one, I would want to choose the best one, not to go on missing the potentially better one because of a poor choice. What is most important to me is the image quality (including dynamic range, colours, and sharpness) and the degree of control I would have on it. Also, I would want one that is able to capture good photos in low light conditions as well as good video.

An investment?! No, bodies are a real waste of money, just like our everyday cars. Lenses... maybe - the better ones hold value really well and probably some like Canon 85mm f/1.2L II even increased in value at some point in 2008. So expect that £600 body to be worth a mere £100 just a few years later.

If you care about IQ at all I'd invest some money in education, then put the rest to quality glass. You probably didn't expect to hear that something like 1Ds mkII from 2004 will totally overkill anything that may come out from these little shiny new dSLRs yet would cost similar or less used... Over to you sir.

 

[StephyB]

I don't think there is that much difference between canon and nikon. For me, the body was an investment. I actually bought a higher level body than I needed (as a complete newbie to all things photography). I figure when I start being very disappointed with the entry level glass I'll start putting money into L series glass (fyi, glass = lenses).

It's a fallacy that you need to spend a fortune on glass imo, especially when you are just starting out and it's a hobby.

I learn faster by doing something and having someone point out what is wrong with what I'm doing. The feedback from the critique sections of this forum have been invaluable, even reading what others are saying about other people's images.

What do you want to get out of your DSLR if you purchase one?

 

[pingu666]

bodies age much more quickly, a 5d is very cheap now vs its launch price, a contempoary lens will retain its value better

 

[StewartR]

Don't worry about feature-by-feature comparisons. The differences are slight, and certainly not big enough to influence a purchasing decision.

But there is one big, important difference: the ergonomics.

When I bought my first DSLR, I was comparing the entry-level Nikon and Canon models of the time, like you are, only in my case it was D70 vs 350D. In terms of specs they were comparable, and I didn't have any particularly niche interests which would incline me towards one system or the other. So I went and handled both cameras in a local shop.

I found that the Canon felt totally intuitive to me. All the controls were in the right place and worked the way I expected them to. The Nikon was bizarrely unintuitive, with confusing menus and awkward controls - even down to the placement of the main control wheel, which I found really awkward to reach and use with my short fat fingers. So as soon as I'd handled the cameras the decision was a total no-brainer.

But - and this is the key point - I know people who made exactly the same comparison and reached exactly the opposite decision. It's a very personal thing. So don't trust any person or any review if it says one has better ergonomics than the other. The only person who can decide that for you is you.

And it's important to get this right because you're potentially buying into a system. Your first DSLR is unlikely to be your last DSLR, and within each manufacturer's range the cameras have a lot of shared DNA. So if you find you particularly do or don't get on well with the Canon 600D, it's more than likely that you'll have a similar reaction to the 70D or the 6D or any other Canon DSLR.

The final point to note is that you are buying into a system and the systems are not equally capable. In some niche areas one manufacturer will be ahead of the other. So if you have any really niche interests that might require expensive gear at some point in the future, say so now and people here can help you. Otherwise, both systems will meet the needs of 99% of photographers equally well, so buy into the one that feels right for you.[/quote]

 

[PhotographyBuff]

Thanks everyone for your responses.

Don't worry about feature-by-feature comparisons. The differences are slight, and certainly not big enough to influence a purchasing decision.

But there is one big, important difference: the ergonomics.

When I bought my first DSLR, I was comparing the entry-level Nikon and Canon models of the time, like you are, only in my case it was D70 vs 350D. In terms of specs they were comparable, and I didn't have any particularly niche interests which would incline me towards one system or the other. So I went and handled both cameras in a local shop.

I found that the Canon felt totally intuitive to me. All the controls were in the right place and worked the way I expected them to. The Nikon was bizarrely unintuitive, with confusing menus and awkward controls - even down to the placement of the main control wheel, which I found really awkward to reach and use with my short fat fingers. So as soon as I'd handled the cameras the decision was a total no-brainer.

But - and this is the key point - I know people who made exactly the same comparison and reached exactly the opposite decision. It's a very personal thing. So don't trust any person or any review if it says one has better ergonomics than the other. The only person who can decide that for you is you.

And it's important to get this right because you're potentially buying into a system. Your first DSLR is unlikely to be your last DSLR, and within each manufacturer's range the cameras have a lot of shared DNA. So if you find you particularly do or don't get on well with the Canon 600D, it's more than likely that you'll have a similar reaction to the 70D or the 6D or any other Canon DSLR.

The final point to note is that you are buying into a system and the systems are not equally capable. In some niche areas one manufacturer will be ahead of the other. So if you have any really niche interests that might require expensive gear at some point in the future, say so now and people here can help you. Otherwise, both systems will meet the needs of 99% of photographers equally well, so buy into the one that feels right for you.

[/quote]

Thanks for your response. I already use a Canon Powershot A720 IS. And I find its use intuitive. Does that count or is it totally different with DSLRs so that I can't extrapolate from a compact Canon? I already saw and handled the Canon 600D also. But the salesman seemed impatient and I don't know if I was allowed to operate it. They didn't have a Nikon D3200, only a D3100. And all I noticed was that it was smaller. The Canon 600D comes with an offer in a bundle of two lenses, the bag, and a tablet, all for 939 US dollars.

 

[ancient_mariner]

As has been said already, best thing to do is handle both cameras. The Nikon 3200 is small - too small for my hands - but that might be an advantage if you had smaller hands.

The biggest difference I can find between them is that the Canon has an articulated screen on the back and the Nikon doesn't. That means if you want to take a shot close to the ground or well above your head then the Canon will be easier to use than the Nikon.

I bought a camera in this 'range' last year. Tried a few including the Nikon (found it too small, viewfinder was a bit small and dim) Pentax K50 (nice handling, GREAT viewfinder, bit heavier) and the Sony (decent handling, live view through viewfinder, took my old Minolta glass). I'm glad I chose the Sony, but your requirements will be different from mine.