I'm looking into upgrading from my nikon coolpix l120 to a DSLR. I love my Nikon so am looking into that for my upgrade, especially the D3100/D5100. I've read so much info about the cameras and lenses and searched the discussion board. But all the info is scatered so much that i got so confused. So hopefully someone can clear up some things. Here are my points of confusion:
- What are the canon versions of the D3100 and D5100, i konw you get into the rebel serie with that, but are those the 1100D, 600D etc?
- i've read that the nikons don't have an VR in their body, to the canons have a VR in their body?
- If you want to buy lensen with VR can you only get the nikon ones or also the sigma/tamron lenses?
- and with the lenses, i'm planning on buying the kit lens of 18-55mm and then i don't know. I do want the option to zoom since i got 21x zoom on my camera now, but what comes close to that in lenses, without paying an obscene amount of money. do you get the 55-200 or 55-300, how much is the difference in zoom?
- And if you chose the tamron/sigma lens to 200/300, they start at 70, is the gapp of 55-70 an important loss?
I think this is it for now, hope someone can help!
I did a switch like this 2 months ago. My previous camera was the Fuji HS20EXR, with 30 optical zooms. Like you I was use to my zoom power and was sad that a DSLR would not come close o this sort of zoom without paying an absolute fortune.
I upgraded to a Canon 600D and have never looked back. The move was the best ever and my photography improved in leaps and bounds from there forward. The lack of zoom I did not even notice once I got used to my new camera. I got 2 lenses with the 600D - a 18-55mm and a 55-250mm, but I hardly ever use the zooms lens!
I also bought myself a Canon Macro lens, the f/2.8 100mm USM lens. Now this is a fixed lens with no zooming. After a day or two of adjusting to having to move myself instead of the lens, I got totally use to a prime lens. This is the lens I use 99% of the time for macro, portraits, landscape and etc. It is a fabulous lens. Next month I intend to add another primes lens to my collection: the 50mm f/1.4 USM. I can't wait. :)
I am sure the Nikon range is every bit as good as Canon - I think it is really what you are used too, so take which ever side appeals to you. I just wanted to reassure you that the lack of zoom will not bother you at all once you have adjusted to your DSLR.
Basically, I found I was trading versatility (those advanced super zoom cameras are so versatile!) for image quality. The quality my DSLR produces is way beyond that of the previous Fuji, and I am SO glad I made the move.
I echo everything above. I went from a Fuji S4000 and haven't looked back. I tried to take my Fuji out on the way to work as it's a camera I don't mind just chucking in my work bag, and the difference in the quality of photos, I honestly can't believe.
Currys knock 50 quid off the price of the Sigma lens when you buy it with the camera.
I went from a 30X zoom on my Fuji, and sometimes I forget that I can't zoom as far on my standard lens, but my 300mm lens covers a stupid distance. The quality was never that good at full extension on my Fuji anyway. Fun to have to spy on people though :P
@nicoleterheide Hi Nicole, I have a Nikon D90 and I can share my experiences with you (I am sure many people will disagree with me though!)
I do not know Canon so I won't reply to that.
You can find stabilised lenses that are not Nikon (e.g. Tamron call it VC instead of VR, and Sigma call it OS).
About zoom lenses... OK personally I am not a big fan of 200+ lenses! I made a shot at 200mm ( http://365project.org/florrie/365/2013-01-20) but I rarely use that lens, let alone higher. I think the range 55-70 is much more important that 200 - 300. Again, I am sure many will disagree!
If I was to give you advice, that would be:
why not starting with using the kit lens, get acquainted with it, see the results and decide from there what you want to do? Using a DSLR is quite different from using a compact, so you might change your mind about the lenses that you need. Good luck on you quest :)
> i've read that the nikons don't have an VR in their body, to the canons have a VR in their body?
Nope, you'll want a Pentax for that.
- If you want to buy lensen with VR can you only get the nikon ones or also the sigma/tamron lenses?
Sigma & Tamron both have their own systems -- AFAIK, Tamron call it VC (Vibration Correction) and Sigma call it OS (Optical Stabilisation).
Dunno if they're as good or whatever, coz I shoot with a Pentax and don't need to worry about such things. :)
So, alas, I can be of no further help in the Nikon vs Canon thing. I'd go Nikon - were I to jump ship - but I'm irrationally anti-Canon, so don't mind that.
Go to a shop and see what sits best with you. It's mostly about handling, IMHO, the feature set tends to be similar at any given price point...
I have the D3100. It doesn't have VR or a motor in the body, so all these have to be done with the lens. It's a lovel camera and does everything I need. They are probably quite cheap at the moment, as they've just been replaced by the D3200.
I also have the Tamron 70-300, although they don't call it VR they call it VC. Not all of the lenses have VR/VC so you have to be careful when buying. They also don't all have motors in and so won't auto-focus.
I don't really notice the gap between the kit lens and the 70mm of the Tamron, but I guess it depends what you tend to shoot. My Tamron has a macro mode, but I've never used it so can't say how good it is.
If you want to shoot wildlife, I would go for the 300mm Tamron. Its not a fantastic lens but for the price I can't complain. Even at 300mm though you probably need to be shooting in full sun or be on a tripod.
If you shoot portrait/street then I'd go for the 200. In retrospect I'd go for the 200, but I do more portrait.
Buy a Pentax k-5 or k-30! In body stabilisation means you have backward with hundreds of different lenses and the current limited series primes are to die for (perhaps not literally!)
I have the D5100. I bought the Tamron 70-300 a few months ago, and am very pleased with it. It has macro as well, have tried that a few times, but you have to be a fair way back from what you are shooting....quite handy if that happens to be a bee!!
My other lens is the kit 18-55, and can't say I ever noticed that I don't have the 55 to 70 bit.
@nicoleterheide I've been shooting with a Nikon D3100 for the last 20 months. it is a superb entry level DSLR and its image quality, sensor and versatility is many steps above a point and shoot. i would highly recommend you pick one up now as they are very inexpensive since the D3200 was introduced. Also, the 18-55 kit lens is quite good for a kit lens - I recommend you also purchase the 55-200 lens. I own both and this gives you every focal length between 18 and 200. The 55-200 is light and sharp, I use it more than I use the 18-55. It makes wonderful closeups at 200mm handheld.
I am in canon camp. 550d is a good starter body. When I started I got 18-55 and 55 - 250. That gives you lots of options. I would also recomend a 50mm prime as a cheap lens for low light. I love my 35mm prime too but thats a bit more expensive. If you want macro the best start is either 60 or 100mm usm models. 60mm a bit cheaper but 100mm is really worth the extra
@nicoleterheide Youtube "digital rev" and add the camera you're trying to compare... these guys test and compare many cameras plus have lots of tips... i find them very helpful... there is also... google "ken rockwell"... this guy has been very helpful for reviews... goodluck
@nicoleterheide O... i wouldnt get a 55-300 or 55-200... your kit lense is fine but i would invest in a 35mm prime or 50mm prime... and in the future i would invest in a prime zoom lens... i feel stuck with some of my lenses bcuz i shot with my primes now... my 35 or 50 are my favorites lenses to shoot with
I've on my 4th Nikon DSLR, and have had some great results. The D3100 and D5100 are both available at a good price at the moment (the D5200 has just been announced). But have a looke at the D7000. I know coiple of people who have had one and they have both been really pleased.
Nikon lenses are very good, and there are many available second hand in good condition as well. If you get the chance visit Focus on Imaging at the NEC at the beginining of March, Nokon and Canon will both be there and there is usually some good deals to be had.
By the way, VR is in the lenses with Nikon and Canon, which I thinbk is the better option as it is always tuned in to the lens rather than trying to match all lenses, and it is only really necessary on long lenses or in bad light.
Good hunting, and I am sure we will all lokk forward to seeing some photos on here from your new camera.
This is only humble opinion but the body is less important than the lens D3100 or Canon 1100d are fine but the kit lenses are often adequate. You will soon want to upgrade lens so my suggestion would be buy body and lens as seperate items you will miss long zoom and super macro that is in your bridge !
Its a big decision for sure! Simply, for IQ upgrading to a DSLR is wonderful. There's also the mirrorless/ micro four thirds cameras that should be considered. The Sony Nex line for example.
Jason is right about "ken rockwell" reviews, and another is dpreview.
They give you all the technical data and rate the camera accordingly.
It can be worth it to do you homework. Or sometimes it's best to just jump in. : ) Reading all that's out there will make one more confused sometime.
Considerations on the importance of portability should be weighed. A bird or wildlife photographer usually carries a heavy lens or lenses and a heavy tripod to boot. A full frame camera is also less important. for this type of shooting.
Shooting mostly landscapes/ cityscapes/ portraits & macro you can get away with a fast prime wide angle lens and a nice telephoto. Or vise versa.
You were asking about Tamron and Sigma telephotos (70-300) but the Canon kit lens 70-300 is a fine lens to work with and won't break the bank if you don't get it with the camera.
Most of the new DSLRs handle low light situations with excellence. Some are better than others for sure, so if this is important to you than study them.
If you decide to rule out the mirrorless , than decide carefully between Nikon and Canon. Once you start purchasing lenses, filters. tele-converters, etc., you may at some point upgrade the camera body but you won't want to purchase all new lenses too.
Personally, when I started out I went with Canon because at the time it was thought to be the best for bird photography because they had superior IS. However, I could never really afford those superior lenses, so..... Though I shoot Canon, I've always thought Nikon (IMHO only, don't want to start that discussion) had superior optics.
For me, I'm starting to look at the "bridge" cameras for something new and portable. Sick of lugging around all the weight. Can't decide between the Canon SX50 or the Panasonic FZ200. Ahh, decisions, decisions!
You'll be happy either/or, just consider the things that are most important to you.
You have a great eye and take wonderful photos, so keep shooting, and best of luck with whichever choice you make.
If you're looking at a D5100, then also look at the D90 which is a similar price but has a motor to autofocus lenses in the body. Both the models you have said you are considering require you to have lenses with an autofocus motor in them, which makes them more expensive and also harder to find second hand. The D7000 also has the motor in the body, but it's more expensive.
Canon 550D 18-55, 70-300, try and get the lot in a package I reckon about £600 online or £800 on the high street and then if you wanna treat yourself 6 months later the 50mm #II f1.8 about £60 online and £100 on the high street.
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
I upgraded to a Canon 600D and have never looked back. The move was the best ever and my photography improved in leaps and bounds from there forward. The lack of zoom I did not even notice once I got used to my new camera. I got 2 lenses with the 600D - a 18-55mm and a 55-250mm, but I hardly ever use the zooms lens!
I also bought myself a Canon Macro lens, the f/2.8 100mm USM lens. Now this is a fixed lens with no zooming. After a day or two of adjusting to having to move myself instead of the lens, I got totally use to a prime lens. This is the lens I use 99% of the time for macro, portraits, landscape and etc. It is a fabulous lens. Next month I intend to add another primes lens to my collection: the 50mm f/1.4 USM. I can't wait. :)
I am sure the Nikon range is every bit as good as Canon - I think it is really what you are used too, so take which ever side appeals to you. I just wanted to reassure you that the lack of zoom will not bother you at all once you have adjusted to your DSLR.
Basically, I found I was trading versatility (those advanced super zoom cameras are so versatile!) for image quality. The quality my DSLR produces is way beyond that of the previous Fuji, and I am SO glad I made the move.
Good luck with your choice and enjoy the process.
I echo everything above. I went from a Fuji S4000 and haven't looked back. I tried to take my Fuji out on the way to work as it's a camera I don't mind just chucking in my work bag, and the difference in the quality of photos, I honestly can't believe.
I got a deal with Canon for the camera, a 18-55mm and a Sigma 70-300mm, remote & spare battery.
http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/canon-eos-600d-digital-slr-camera-with-18-55-mm-zoom-lens-free-remote-control-additional-battery-11519881-pdt.html
Currys knock 50 quid off the price of the Sigma lens when you buy it with the camera.
I went from a 30X zoom on my Fuji, and sometimes I forget that I can't zoom as far on my standard lens, but my 300mm lens covers a stupid distance. The quality was never that good at full extension on my Fuji anyway. Fun to have to spy on people though :P
I do not know Canon so I won't reply to that.
You can find stabilised lenses that are not Nikon (e.g. Tamron call it VC instead of VR, and Sigma call it OS).
About zoom lenses... OK personally I am not a big fan of 200+ lenses! I made a shot at 200mm ( http://365project.org/florrie/365/2013-01-20) but I rarely use that lens, let alone higher. I think the range 55-70 is much more important that 200 - 300. Again, I am sure many will disagree!
If I was to give you advice, that would be:
why not starting with using the kit lens, get acquainted with it, see the results and decide from there what you want to do? Using a DSLR is quite different from using a compact, so you might change your mind about the lenses that you need. Good luck on you quest :)
> i've read that the nikons don't have an VR in their body, to the canons have a VR in their body?
Nope, you'll want a Pentax for that.
- If you want to buy lensen with VR can you only get the nikon ones or also the sigma/tamron lenses?
Sigma & Tamron both have their own systems -- AFAIK, Tamron call it VC (Vibration Correction) and Sigma call it OS (Optical Stabilisation).
Dunno if they're as good or whatever, coz I shoot with a Pentax and don't need to worry about such things. :)
So, alas, I can be of no further help in the Nikon vs Canon thing. I'd go Nikon - were I to jump ship - but I'm irrationally anti-Canon, so don't mind that.
Go to a shop and see what sits best with you. It's mostly about handling, IMHO, the feature set tends to be similar at any given price point...
I also have the Tamron 70-300, although they don't call it VR they call it VC. Not all of the lenses have VR/VC so you have to be careful when buying. They also don't all have motors in and so won't auto-focus.
I don't really notice the gap between the kit lens and the 70mm of the Tamron, but I guess it depends what you tend to shoot. My Tamron has a macro mode, but I've never used it so can't say how good it is.
If you want to shoot wildlife, I would go for the 300mm Tamron. Its not a fantastic lens but for the price I can't complain. Even at 300mm though you probably need to be shooting in full sun or be on a tripod.
If you shoot portrait/street then I'd go for the 200. In retrospect I'd go for the 200, but I do more portrait.
My other lens is the kit 18-55, and can't say I ever noticed that I don't have the 55 to 70 bit.
Nikon lenses are very good, and there are many available second hand in good condition as well. If you get the chance visit Focus on Imaging at the NEC at the beginining of March, Nokon and Canon will both be there and there is usually some good deals to be had.
By the way, VR is in the lenses with Nikon and Canon, which I thinbk is the better option as it is always tuned in to the lens rather than trying to match all lenses, and it is only really necessary on long lenses or in bad light.
Good hunting, and I am sure we will all lokk forward to seeing some photos on here from your new camera.
Jason is right about "ken rockwell" reviews, and another is dpreview.
They give you all the technical data and rate the camera accordingly.
It can be worth it to do you homework. Or sometimes it's best to just jump in. : ) Reading all that's out there will make one more confused sometime.
Considerations on the importance of portability should be weighed. A bird or wildlife photographer usually carries a heavy lens or lenses and a heavy tripod to boot. A full frame camera is also less important. for this type of shooting.
Shooting mostly landscapes/ cityscapes/ portraits & macro you can get away with a fast prime wide angle lens and a nice telephoto. Or vise versa.
You were asking about Tamron and Sigma telephotos (70-300) but the Canon kit lens 70-300 is a fine lens to work with and won't break the bank if you don't get it with the camera.
Most of the new DSLRs handle low light situations with excellence. Some are better than others for sure, so if this is important to you than study them.
If you decide to rule out the mirrorless , than decide carefully between Nikon and Canon. Once you start purchasing lenses, filters. tele-converters, etc., you may at some point upgrade the camera body but you won't want to purchase all new lenses too.
Personally, when I started out I went with Canon because at the time it was thought to be the best for bird photography because they had superior IS. However, I could never really afford those superior lenses, so..... Though I shoot Canon, I've always thought Nikon (IMHO only, don't want to start that discussion) had superior optics.
For me, I'm starting to look at the "bridge" cameras for something new and portable. Sick of lugging around all the weight. Can't decide between the Canon SX50 or the Panasonic FZ200. Ahh, decisions, decisions!
You'll be happy either/or, just consider the things that are most important to you.
You have a great eye and take wonderful photos, so keep shooting, and best of luck with whichever choice you make.