# I'm struggling to decide on a camera, sensor size, mirrorless or SLR...Think you can help? ;)



## TimmyD11 (Aug 7, 2017)

I'm struggling to decide on a camera, sensor size, mirrorless or SLR...Think you can help? 

I was a serious amateur photographer in the eighties and nineties and then I moved away from it as I took on other interests and priorities.

I've always appreciated a good photograph though.

I'd like to get pretty serious with it again.

I am passionate about the great outdoors, wilderness, nature, mountain scenery and wildlife.

Providing I can find one other person to do it with I love hiking, backpacking, canoe camping and pretty much anything in wilderness and mountains.

And this is what I love to photograph.

I also might want to dabble in astrophotography at some point. I think this would be very compatible with wilderness camping.

But I don't get to do these things nearly as often as I like, and for the most part any camera I got would probably be sitting on a shelf somewhere until I was able to go on one of these trips.

I am concerned with not "getting enough camera" and perhaps "buying too much camera" or more camera than I need...for my skill level...and how often it gets used.

So I want to strike that balance.

As mentioned in previous threads I have 3 Canon EF lenses from back in the nineties which will probably work, but even though these were good back in the day (but not the great "L" lenses) I understand lens technology has come a long way and I could get much better lenses for reasonable money now?

So I'm not sure if I want to stick with Canon. Or go over to Nikon? Or Sony? Or Panasonic? Or Fujifilm? I don't know if APSC is sufficient or if I should splurge for full frame. I don't know if I should go DSLR or ditch the mirror. If I stick with APSC is the T7i sufficient or should I go with the 77D? Or does the 80D have a feature or features that the 77D doesn't? And the same question can be asked of any $700, $1000, or $1400 camera by any other manufacturer.

Sigh!

PS - Yes, I would like to print any good photographs I have taken. Maybe not huge sized prints but I'd like to be able to do pretty big prints without loss of detail.


----------



## cherylynne1 (Aug 7, 2017)

I can definitely feel how overwhelmed you are! 

For astrophotography, I definitely wouldn't go with a smaller sensor than APS-C. So while M43s and 1" sensors are great for hiking, it might not be the best choice if you decide to do astrophotography. 

As for narrowing the rest down, I think you need to go into a camera store. Since you have experience with cameras, you'll likely be able to tell right away which ones feel good and which don't work for you. For instance, with the mirrorless from Sony and Fuji, you'll either love the new capabilities for manual focusing (like focus peaking) or you'll despise the EVF. That will make it really easy to cross off some major categories. After that, then you can compare specs and reviews of the cameras that you liked to see which would fit best for your needs.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 7, 2017)

cherylynne1 said:
			
		

> I can definitely feel how overwhelmed you are! >>SNIP??



Yes, so many undecided-upon things. Do you want to cling to some 1990's lenses? DO you want the best astrophotography camera you can buy? What is your actual budget? Do you currently have a digital camera, and are your currently set up with software to process raw images? Do you want to carry ONE, single battery, for two whole day's worth of shooting (NIkon d-slr), or buy a mirrorless and cart three or four or five batteries around for longer shooting excursions?

There are some obvious choices in d-slrs if you want the best in three categories, and want to save money. Nikon D810 or D800e, used. Nikon D750 used. Nikon D600 used. OR, any of those, refurbished.

Or, buy a Canon. A $700, $1000, or $1400 model, new.

Or buy a Sony mirrorless. Or a Fuji.

I used to sell cameras at retail, and my read is that you're a careful, cautious buyer, and that you really need some assistance in making the choices, but, without a REAL, finite budget, you can not buy anything, because, well, it takes actual money, $xxx or $X,xxx amount, to get a camera.

The real issue is, " Do you want to let the three 1990's lenses you own direct your current and future photography path?" As I recall, you have **one** VERY good lens, the Canon EF 85mm f/1.8, which is a great lens, I owned it for years, and I really liked it, it's a SOLID performer. The 28-135...that's an old, 35mm film-era kit zoom, and will be a white elephant on APS-C Canon. On FF Canon, the 28-135 might be pretty decent: the 5D does NOT "stress" optics all that much.

In your shoes, I say what I said 10 days ago to you: get a USED camera. Canon 5D classic for $375, or used Canon 6D. You do not seem fully committed to a system, so buy a used, already-depreciated camera.


----------



## Gary A. (Aug 7, 2017)

I was gonna toss out a lot of this and a lot of that and some stuff about the other thing. But modern digital cameras are so good that it is hard to go wrong with most any brand or model. 

That being said, just get a Fuji and don't worry be happy. (Whatever you get you will adapt to.) 

For what I shoot and how I shoot, the image I capture plays a much bigger role in the success of my photo than sensor size.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 7, 2017)

Go to a large photo store, if possible. Look at some cameras and lenses, at a good, real, brick and mortar store...there's NOTHING quite like shopping for gear in-person. And when you find something you like, and the time comes to buy, do the right thing, and buy it from the store that demo'd the gear for you, and not from some NYC dealer's website.


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 7, 2017)

The last store I was physically in, with a HUGE selection of cameras in store, was Adorama in NYC. I live just north of the city so if I want to see lots of cameras in person I have the luxury and convenience of going to B&H or Adorama.

I'm reluctant to buy used. I'd just like to get the best camera I can get new. May not be a rational choice but that's my instinct.


----------



## Gary A. (Aug 7, 2017)

PS- There is absolutely nothing wrong with used or refurbished gear.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 7, 2017)

TimmyD11 said:


> The last store I was physically in, with a HUGE selection of cameras in store, was Adorama in NYC. I live just north of the city so if I want to see lots of cameras in person I have the luxury and convenience of going to B&H or Adorama.
> 
> I'm reluctant to buy used. I'd just like to get the best camera I can get new. May not be a rational choice but that's my instinct.





Gary A. said:


> PS- There is absolutely nothing wrong with used or refurbished gear.



Unless one loathes used gear...

Well, set a budget.  Head to one of the two largest photo dealers in the world. They can set you up. Good luck!


----------



## cherylynne1 (Aug 7, 2017)

If you can physically go to B&H or Adorama, then you can likely buy a used version of whatever camera you like from two of the most reputable used dealers in the country. I've bought a few used items from B&H, and I swear that they took $60 off my tripod because the originally packaging was in bad shape. Just the packaging. The tripod was pristine. 

Just saying that considering how fast the bodies depreciate, it's worth asking them if they have a used version of whatever you decide on.


----------



## Flash Harry (Aug 8, 2017)

I'd definitely look for a used 'pro', low shutter count body, then you've got all the bells and whistles for less cash, you'll also get a camera which can take a knock which if you're hiking in the wild is definitely going to happen. If your three lens aren't worth a great deal you won't find changing over brands to be an issue either, plus you could possibly trade those against any purchase but like the others have said you really need some numbers you're willing to spend and if moneys tight stick to those figures.


----------



## jaomul (Aug 8, 2017)

It's hard to get a do it all camera. You could of course get a cam that will do everything you list, but then hiking you are carrying lots. Weather sealing seems an important factor here also, something rugged.

The wildlife you intend to shoot, is this birds in flight as well as others or more stationary?

Throw example, a canon 6d or Nikon d610, your lenses are substantial. A weather sealed M4/3 such as a Panasonic G80 or Olympus Em1 might be a great option but someone above says these may not be good enough for stars etc, I think I'd take the hit here though, I'm sure stars are still possible with these cams


----------



## fmw (Aug 8, 2017)

If you have seen some of the great images people make with cell phones then you should ignore the issue of sensor size.   I'm also a mirrorless user and I view DSLR's as big, heavy, clunky, old fashioned machines.  Pros who need them should use DSLR's but I don't understand why they appeal to amateurs.  Some amateurs are more concerned with features and bragging rights than they are about photography.  Having been a commercial photography pro for many years and now an amateur, at least I have the experience to have well developed opinions.

There are some great mirrorless camera systems from companies like Fuji, Sony, Panasonic and Canon M series.  Go check them out.  They will do what a DSLR will do in smaller, lighter package.  I use Fuji which makes cameras with metal bodies and lenses with metal bodies and aperture rings.  The lenses are as good as lenses get.  Their products are made for the best quality rather than the best price like plastic DSLR's.


----------



## astroNikon (Aug 8, 2017)

You mentioned astrophotography.
So I'll throw this out there.

don't buy SONY at the moment. They have this feature called "Star Eater" which they are trying to correct.  Do a quick google search and you'll see what I mean. NO ONE is recommending SONY right now for astro work.

So ... FujiFilm for mirrorless.

The mirrorless cameras have a distinct advantage for astrophotography over DSLRs.

I've learned that in a calm (no wind, cars driving past, etc) that I need at least 5 seconds pause between a Mirror UP and then taking the photo.  Nikon D3x00 and D5x00 are not able to do this 5 second pause, only 3 seconds.  Sometimes you need more too.  So only the D7x00 and higher are capable of MuP - Mirror UP, which you can delay the camera.  Some Canon cameras has an electronic shutter which help in this situation too.

Mirrorless cameras don't have this problem.

So for simplicity, I recommend mirrorless.
Just make sure the mirrorless can be remotely triggered either through a wire remote, wireless remote of through you phone/bluetooth device.


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 8, 2017)

Yeah I guess if I decide I will not even try to use my old lenses, and decide on APSC, there is a good argument for mirrorless APSC over DSLR APSC.

And if I ever try to do astrophotography, APSC can stand up to full frame pretty much nowadays?


----------



## astroNikon (Aug 8, 2017)

TimmyD11 said:


> And if I ever try to do astrophotography, APSC can stand up to full frame pretty much nowadays?


For Low light .. as APS-C gets better ... usually that's trickle down technology from FullFrame which is always getting better too.

If you are *not* talking about Low Light, then yeah, sure.
If you want to compare a current APS-C to an *old* FullFrame, then sure.

But my FF is about 1-2 stops faster for low light which makes a difference for Astro work.  
Essentially a 60second APS-C shot is down to 15 seconds FF with all being equal.
Of course with tracking you can take longer exposures, etc.

But you're getting picky then.  If you like it you'll start doing it and I wouldn't worry about it.


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 8, 2017)

So I would consider getting one of the less expensive full frame cameras, probably at about $1500 US. But it looks like an original Sony A7 mirrorless can be had for cheaper if one can be found (new).  Although astroNikon a advises against Sony?

And that original version is probably pretty old now, huh?

Are any APSC cameras BETTER than some of the less expensive full frame cameras? (Obviously less money or I could just bump up my budget for full frame DSLR as well)


----------



## chuasam (Aug 8, 2017)

Sony A7S II  best for low light


----------



## astroNikon (Aug 8, 2017)

chuasam said:


> Sony A7S II  best for low light


There's a BIG problem with the SONY's for astrophotography and one of their firmware updates.
Just google "Star Eater" and you'll see the internet is littered with this problem. It's not resolved yet either with the latest patch.
==> sony star eater - Google Search

except for the a9 !!

I actually was highly considering getting a SONY, except it would be 75% astro work .. and this problem is BIG.
Except the a9 .. but the a9 is unaffordable.


----------



## chuasam (Aug 8, 2017)

astroNikon said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > Sony A7S II  best for low light
> ...


----------



## astroNikon (Aug 9, 2017)

Don't look now,
but the End of the World is COMING !!


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 9, 2017)

So 60 second exposures with APSC vs 15 second exposures with full frame. 

Care to elaborate on that? Is that a big deal? Do stars move much during that time? 

Does this cause other issues?

I'd do APSC and perhaps mirrorless but since I am having a hard time deciding on ANY camera my goal could be the least expensive camera that can do astralphotography well. I reckon if it can perform well for this it has the ability to do pretty much everything else quite well.


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 9, 2017)

How about instead of getting an expensive camera like the 80D or 6D I get a t6s or t7i and a fast wide angle lens? (Make up for things on the lens end)

Now APSC for Canon has a crop factor of 1.6 but is there any effect on aperture? If theoretically I get a 1.4 or 2.8 lens does that remain 1.4 or 2.8 or does that get effected or altered by an APSC camera as well?


----------



## astroNikon (Aug 9, 2017)

TimmyD11 said:


> So 60 second exposures with APSC vs 15 second exposures with full frame.
> 
> Care to elaborate on that? Is that a big deal? Do stars move much during that time?
> 
> ...


"care to elaborate?"  No, not really.  But read this ==> https://petapixel.com/2015/01/06/avoid-star-trails-following-500-rule/

"Does this cause other issues?"
Truthfully, I wouldn't worry about it if I was you.  You are just starting out.
Many ppl ask for the "best" just to go for the cheapest in the end as they had no idea about everything.
When you get around to using your camera on a $5,000 telescope by then you'll know a lot more about the camera equipment and everything involved.

Just, at the present moment, don't get a SONY mirrorless.
You can wait, and they hopefully will fix the problem in the near future.
Or, the SONY a9 mirrorless apparently does not have the problem.

Or go with a DSLR but also factor in mirrorslap.  The D3x00 and d5x00 are fine cameras too.  I'm just really, really picky and have done tests with them in the past.  Generally most people won't notice anything.


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 9, 2017)

I have been away from photography for a while but I was a somewhat knowledgeable amateur with 35mm film. My current lack of knowledge has more to do with the technology of current cameras.

So I'll repeat again in case it was missed: Can I do well with astrophotography with a mid level enthusiast APSC camera and a fast wide angle lens or would that be very inferior to a full frame camera?


----------



## astroNikon (Aug 9, 2017)

TimmyD11 said:


> So I'll repeat again in case it was missed: Can I do well with astrophotography with a mid level enthusiast APSC camera and a fast wide angle lens


Yes.


----------



## Designer (Aug 9, 2017)

TimmyD11 said:


> Now APSC for Canon has a crop factor of 1.6 but is there any effect on aperture? If theoretically I get a 1.4 or 2.8 lens does that remain 1.4 or 2.8 or does that get effected or altered by an APSC camera as well?


No.

Yes.

No. 

Frankly, you're into the weeds already, so if astrophotography is important to you, start by finding out what other astrophotographers use, and get that.


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 10, 2017)

I wish I could know that Canon "matched" the Nikon D7200. Otherwise, if I opted to discard my Canon lenses I'd just get the Nikon D7200. Unless Canon caught up this seems to be the best bang for the buck APS-C DSLR at the moment.


----------



## cherylynne1 (Aug 10, 2017)

The Canon 80d is the closest they've come to competition for the d7200. If you type "Canon 80d vs Nikon d7200" you'll come up with dozens of websites exploring the pros and cons of each. Generally speaking, Canon struggles to keep up on paper with Sony/Nikon sensors, though Canon users often argue that Canon is more ergonomic and user friendly, and provides more pleasing skin tones. It's a matter of taste, which is why trying out both in a store is so important. 

If you've decided to go with a DSLR over mirrorless, I agree that the d7200 is probably the best bang for your buck. It's a stellar camera, top of its class for years until it replaced itself with the d7500.


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 10, 2017)

Also I think I'd like Canon's in camera HDR better than Nikon's...other than that the Nikon seems to be the better camera.

In camera HDR plus having a few EF lenses a s a "head start" VS the overall better camera if I were just starting out and cheaper.


----------



## cherylynne1 (Aug 10, 2017)

It's my understanding that most serious HDR work is done using exposure bracketing and post-processing HDR, but I'm not an expert on the subject. Perhaps someone else can chime in.


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 11, 2017)

That's my understanding as well, but I am an amateur and my gut feeling is I would be pleased with the in camera HDR.

Plus people may like to do HDR with bracketed shots on the computer because they want to work with RAW? Does in camera HDR only get saved as JPEG?


----------



## beagle100 (Aug 11, 2017)

TimmyD11 said:


> That's my understanding as well, but I am an amateur and my gut feeling is I would be pleased with the in camera HDR.
> 
> Plus people may like to do HDR with bracketed shots on the computer because they want to work with RAW? Does in camera HDR only get saved as JPEG?



yes, shooting in RAW is better and in-camera bracketed shots is easy to process Photoshop, DPP, Lightroom, etc
*www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorles*s


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 11, 2017)

So the Canon 6D, Canon's cheapest full frame camera, is over 4 years old, and has come down to $1400.

But I understand Canon's sensors have improved in the last few years.

If I'd splurge for the 4+ year old 6D, is it still a superior camera to the newest APS-C cameras (t7i / 77D / 80D) or are the newer smaller sensors combined with the newer processors superior?


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 11, 2017)

Also, Nikon's D7200's price has dropped and with all the hype you'd think it were better than many full frame cameras. Is it? And why?


----------



## cherylynne1 (Aug 11, 2017)

Comparing camera specs is easy, just google "(Camera 1) vs. (Camera 2)." In this case, Canon 80d vs Canon 6d" results in links such as this: Canon 6D vs Canon 80D

Then you can compare for yourself which is better in the aspects you find important. 

The Nikon 7200 was the best APS-C camera for many years. Most people know whether they want full frame or APS-C, so comprisons between them are largely irrelevant. A top-of-the-line APS-C camera will have features that a cheap, basic full frame camera will not. A full frame camera will have certain aspects of image quality that an APS-C camera will not. 

You've narrowed it down to a few choices and you're becoming overwhelmed with decision paralysis. Go to a camera store. You're not going to get any further on your current path.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 11, 2017)

cherylynne1 said:


> Comparing camera specs is easy, just google "(Camera 1) vs. (Camera 2)." In this case, Canon 80d vs Canon 6d" results in links such as this: Canon 6D vs Canon 80D
> 
> Then you can compare for yourself which is better in the aspects you find important.
> 
> ...



This is the best advice I've seen in this ongoing saga. Paralysis through over-analysis. Every salesman's nightmare client.


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 11, 2017)

Derrel said:


> This is the best advice I've seen in this ongoing saga. Paralysis through over-analysis. Every salesman's nightmare client.



Hence I haven't spoken to any sales people yet.

And you were the one I figured would be given me conclusive advice over whether or not an older entry level full frame camera is better or worse than a newer enthusiast APS-C camera.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 11, 2017)

TimmyD11 said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > This is the best advice I've seen in this ongoing saga. Paralysis through over-analysis. Every salesman's nightmare client.
> ...



As a former camera salesman, I have a very strong hunch that my opinion would likely be discarded as soon as a competing article or blog post or fanboy comment were to be taken into consideration. DxO Mark can tell you what camera has a better sensor than another camera; there are older semi-pro-level FF cameras now for $350 to $450 (Canon 5D, Nikon D700)..but you said you don't want to buy a used camera. So...there's no point in even answering strawman questions if, as you stated, plainly, you do NOT want to buy a used camera.

You do not want an older entry level FF apparently. You wrote ," *I'm reluctant to buy used. I'd just like to get the best camera I can get new. May not be a rational choice but that's my instinct*."

I've been around camera buyers, camera users, and forum people for a long time. Forty years or so. I know what's going on here. I'm pretty familiar with personality types and buyer types and being afraid to make the wrong decision and wanting to have EVERYTHING be the best it can be. For $700 to $1,400. You need to make a decision at some point. You are indeed, struggling to decide, regarding multiple aspects of your future purchase. Brand, format,style,feature set,new or used or refurbished, budget level, and so on. You are in a situation that many of us have seen, multiple times. I've stated my recommendations a couple of times, but really, I'm done with advice-giving. I wish I could help, but it's clear that the time to make the decision has come. Or not. Perhaps more time would help clarify this purchase. Maybe try a rental...

You live withing a short drive of two of the world's largest camera stores. Adorama and B&H Photo have mirrorless, d-slr's, APS-C, FF,FX,and m4/3, new, and used, and refurbished, Canon,Nikon,Fuji,Sony,Pentax,and Olympus, Panasonic, and so on. Maybe some actual, real hands-on time with some cameras and lenses would help narrow down the possible choices?

Just get a good camera, that's 30% of it. The other 70% is your skill and artistic vision.


----------



## cherylynne1 (Aug 11, 2017)

The longer you wait to go to a camera store and physically hold them in your hands, the worse the paralysis will get, which is why we keep pushing you to do that rather than comparing spec sheets. 

And no one can conclusively say whether older full frames are "better" than newer APS-C. There are a thousand different things that they could be judged on. When you have two specific cameras you'd like to compare, that can be done, and I showed you how to Google that answer.


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 11, 2017)

Derrel I said I did not want to buy an older USED full frame camera. I'd consider an older NEW full frame camera if I learned that it was superior to a less expensive new APS-C camera.

Guess what I'd like to know is if Canon improved their sensor / processor combinations enough that a t7i / 77D / 80D is now as good or better than the older 6D.

May come down to an APS-C camera with a much better lens immediately or a 6D and putting a new lens on hold until I knock down the credit card enough after purchasing the 6D.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 11, 2017)

I just made this meme for you, Tim. *All in good fun!* 





Hope you take advantage of this weekend to head in to Adorama or B&H Photo, to lay some hands on some actual photo gear! You might dislike some stuff, you might like other stuff, you might fall in love with something too!

Get the budget set; you can not buy what you cannot afford to buy, so that alone, having an actual,firm budget limit, ought to eliminate a huge swath of potential products!


----------



## cherylynne1 (Aug 11, 2017)

Did you even click on the link I sent you, comparing the 80d and the 6d? I don't know, I'm starting to feel like you only respond to others in this thread when I'm trying so hard to answer your specific questions. 

You want my advice? You have no need for full frame, old or new. I have a personal bias against the Rebel line because of how laughably behind the T3-T5s were in comparison to similarly priced competition. Maybe the 7 is a little better, but I'd never put money on it. The 80d is a great camera, and the 80d with a good lens will beat the 6d with a kit lens any day of the week. In fact, a crappy Rebel with a great lens will beat out a full frame camera any day of the week. But you're so stuck on spec sheets you're ignoring those kinds of things. The lens, the lighting, and above all, the skill of the photographer will make more of a difference than any sensor in the history of photography. 

I'm sorry if I sound short, I'm just really starting to feel frustrated (and those of you that have known me for awhile know how very rarely I get frustrated.)


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 11, 2017)

Sorry cherylynne1

Imaging Resource is a credible source?


----------



## cherylynne1 (Aug 11, 2017)

Imaging Resource, Camera Decision, Snap sort, etc all basically just repeat info from DxO Mark. You can go straight to DxO Mark as well, I'm just usually on my phone and Imaging Resource is easier to read. They aren't forming opinions, they're just stating facts. If you want to read opinions, DPreview has excellent and thorough reviews.  

DxO Mark isn't a perfect system for judging sensors, but it's the best available. It's generally used as the standard. You can compare high ISOs visually by using the Studio Comparison tool at DPreview. They use many cameras to take photos of the same scene under the same conditions, and you can compare close-ups under versions ISOs to see what you would consider the better choice.


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 11, 2017)

No dxomark for the 77D or T7i.

It appears the 80D gets it's clock cleaned by the D7200. Even the D3400.

If it weren't for my Canon lenses and the curiosity of Canon's in camera HDR settings I'd just switch to Nikon.


----------



## cherylynne1 (Aug 11, 2017)

DPreview has Studio comparisons, so at least you can look at those. Studio shot comparison: Digital Photography Review

In this I picked RAW at 3200, in a low light scenario, with the focus on the lettering, because that's always easiest to compare for me (I feel like I'm just at the eye doctor, asking which is clearer.  ) But you can play around to see which scenario seems more likely for you. You can also switch out the Nikon d7200 for one of the Canons if you'd like. 

If you like Canon, stick with Canon. Don't switch brands because of spec sheets (and I say this as a die hard Sony fan, and Sony rocks the spec sheets.) The camera that will work the best for you is the one you enjoy using the most. Spec sheets show only a tiny, tiny portion of the whole picture (pun intended!)


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 11, 2017)

Well I have older Canon lenses, and I think I may want to play around with their HDR feature. Other than that I'm disappointed that they have apparently allowed others, especially Nikon, to pull so far ahead of them.

The Sony a6300 seems to get good scores at dxomark, and isn't a very expensive camera, but I have read mixed things about that camera.


----------



## cherylynne1 (Aug 11, 2017)

Sony makes the sensors for themselves and Nikon, so that's why it feels like "everyone" is pulling ahead of Canon. It's just that Sony makes killer sensors that do very well in studio testing scenarios. But as I mentioned before, Canon users often argue that Canon has better ergonomics, colors, etc. There are plenty of professional photographers that do amazing with Canon. A couple points on a spec sheet makes very little difference in the real world. It all depends on what you like. 

For me, Canon and Nikon feel massive in my hands, and I know they would always sit at home. On the other hand, as soon as I held a Sony mirrorless, I fell in love. I didn't even get confused by the almost universally despised NEX menu systems. But others say they feel too small, the buttons are awkwardly placed, etc. It's purely personal taste. And for my fangirl side, I LOVE that Sony is shooting for the stars with their innovations. I mean, you could almost hear the jaws drop across the photography universe when they released the specs on the long-rumored a9. Like, are you kidding me? A mirrorless that could actually compete against the best of the best that Nikon and Canon have to offer? It's so ridiculous and fantastic and amazing and it gets me ridiculously excited, even if I can't afford it (and don't really have any reason to buy it if I could.) 

I'm just saying, you have to go with the company that makes you happy. And honestly, that sounds like Canon. You're only looking at Nikon because they test well, you don't seem particularly excited about them as a brand. Do you really want to wear a Nikon strap around your neck? When people ask what camera you're using, will you be proud and excited to tell them about it? Probably not. 

Canon has been resting on their laurels for a decade or so, but Sony is pushing them into action. Their CEO came out and said that they are pouring more money into R&D. They haven't yet made their last stand. The 80d was a huge step forward, as was the lastest mirrorless offering (M5? Maybe? I've forgotten.) They have a long history, a lot of money, and a massive fanbase. They have the potential to pull way ahead of the competition. Will they do it? Hard to tell. I'm not sure how long this three-way race between Sony, Nikon, and Canon can continue, but in the meantime, it's great for the consumers. They are all pushing each other to innovate faster and better than ever before, and it's so much fun to watch.


----------



## Gary A. (Aug 11, 2017)

Get a Fuji XT2.  (You can thank me later.)


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 12, 2017)

I know the camera doesn't make the photographer, amateur or pro, but I'd like to get the best camera that I can afford and justify, and take it from there. Usually that involves specs comparisons.

I have another question for those of you that would like to answer: Which VERY good cameras, enthusiast APS-C and least expensive full frame, are the most "amateur / beginner / enthusiast" "friendly"? Simple to use, simple to find controls, easy to find and select things...while still an upper level enthusiast camera?

I want something with temporary "training wheels" that I won't want to replace, for any reason, after the training wheels come off.


----------



## astroNikon (Aug 12, 2017)

TimmyD11 said:


> Derrel I said I did not want to buy an older USED full frame camera. I'd consider an older NEW full frame camera if I learned that it was superior to a less expensive new APS-C camera.
> .... May come down to an APS-C camera with a much better lens immediately or a 6D and putting a new lens on hold until I knock down the credit card enough after purchasing the 6D.


?? what does that mean?
an APS-C has certain better attributes than a FF, **AND** Vice Versa.



TimmyD11 said:


> ... I have another question for those of you that would like to answer: Which VERY good cameras, enthusiast APS-C and least expensive full frame, are the most "amateur / beginner / enthusiast" "friendly"? Simple to use, simple to find controls, easy to find and select things...while still an upper level enthusiast camera?


Geez.  go to a camera store, stop looking at the internet.

*exclude* from your choice these Nikons (don't ask, just take my word based on your statements): older D700 FX, D3x0 DX, D500 DX, D8x0 FX ... these cameras do not have any "training wheels"

*Include*: Nikon d750 FX,  d6x0 FX, D7x00 DX.   with Canon I guess include:  6D, 5d <any iteration> FX, and I don't know their crop cameras.  But if you have any memory card type requirements then it may exclude certain cameras.

But don't forget FujiFilm has some excellent cameras in the X-T20, Xt-2.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 12, 2017)

Canon 70D,77D,80D. all good Canon APS-C bodies.Proven. Canon ergonomics.

Nikon D7100,D7200. D7200, best-performing APS-C "*enthusiast-level*"camera in the entire industry.PERIOD.

Nikon D750, D610, Nikon D600,Canon 6D, Canon 5D Classic, best to worst.

Not sure you can afford a Fuji X-series and lenses. Very nice, stylish, well-designed, thoughtful company that updates older models.


----------



## Dragster3 (Aug 12, 2017)

I say go used, get a feel for DSLR. I bought my D5000 for $75, 15-55 vr $75, 55-200 vr $75, promaster tripod for $50 w/ head, 10-20 sigma $220, I'm under $500 and it feels good, I can get my money back easy. I used facebook market place and offerup. 

I already want to upgrade, but until I get a smoking deal...I'll hold.

Good luck!


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 12, 2017)

I feel a natural gravitation towards Canon, probably because of my history with them, and because of the lenses I own, which might not work great on them but will probably work good on them for the time being, AND liking the idea of Canon's various HDR settings

BUT

according to what I have read, it appears that I'd be getting an inferior camera sticking with Canon.

So I am thinking about cutting my losses.

It really comes down to thinking I'd like the artistic HDR settings on the Canon and owning Canon lenses VS getting the better camera altogether..........and it has me sitting squarely on the fence.

It appears the Nikon D600 full frame can no longer be found new but would probably be around the same price as the Canon 6D full frame if it could...and probably kick the Canon's *** it looks like.

The Nikon D7200 APS-C is $1000 and the Canon 6D full frame is $1400 but if I am interpreting things correctly dxomark ranks the Nikon APS-C higher than the Canon full frame.

Even the Sony a6300 seems to rank higher than the Canon 80D at dxomark.

And they haven't given any results for the t7i or the 77D, which I'd be curious about because their sensor / processor combination is the latest offering from Canon and I'D REALLY LIKE TO KNOW HOW IT COMPARES!!! Falls short? Falls short by a mile?

And Derrel, no offense, but you planted the Canon doubt in my head!

edit: Just saw that the Nikon D610 can be had at Best Buy for $1500, which is probably an incredible camera at a cost just slightly higher than I wanted to go. But it would probably be a camera that kept me from desiring a different camera for a long time.


----------



## Designer (Aug 12, 2017)

Here's yet another thing to consider:  When most people are deciding on whether to get an APS-C or "full frame", they usually have some definite reason to do so, not simply to get the better camera. 

Those two major sizes of cameras have different uses, different qualities, and different imaging. 

One either needs a full size camera, or he doesn't.  Once that decision has been made, he then narrows the choices WITHIN THAT PARTICULAR SIZE. 

Your bouncing around between the two sizes is not helping you get to THE ONE camera.


----------



## Gary A. (Aug 12, 2017)

I keep harping on this point ... "Significance" ... as in how significant are the camera differences, to a novice, between Nikon and Canon ... ? And will those differences "significantly" affect and effect your images.

To be honest ... mostly likely ... probably not.

ISO invariance, (Sony sensors), is significant as a tool to avoid blown out highlights, but should not be used as a crutch for bad exposures. Sony, Nikon, Fuji use Sony sensors in both FF and APS-C (off the top of my head).

FF will give you less DOF but how often do you need/want razor thin DOF? In practice, FF goes wide easier but APS-C goes long easier, (not proper photo tech talk, but I think you know what I mean).  Typically, top level FF lenses are superior, APS-C are less expensive, FF lenses work on APS-C, APS-C doesn't work on FF. FF does better in extreme low light than APS-C, but how often do you shoot in "extreme" low light?

I have FF cameras (Canon 1D's), APS-C cameras (Fuji XT2 & XP2) and MFT cameras (Oly EM1) ... I have evolved to only shoot my Fuji's.  The Fuji's are a great compromise between the IQ of FF and the small footprint of MFT. 

Just because I shoot Fuji does not mean we should all shoot Fuji.  Just my two cents of decades of shooting from the film only days until today. I cannot think of a shot I would have missed because of sensor size or camera manufacturer (see above).

There really isn't any right or wrong, black or white ... it is all subjective as to which system is right for you.  Most of the DXO type specs do not translate directly into significance, as the image and the strength of the image is more important than the technical specs of the image, in determining image success. 

Granted, a few photogs will appreciate a strong image with high IQ as being most desirable.  But most viewers won't see the IQ.

Remember, the grass is always greener ...


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 12, 2017)

Designer, my current only NEED for a full frame camera is the likelihood that I get a camera that will keep me content for a long time, satisfied that I won't be experiencing any "woulda / coulda / shoulda" with an APS-C camera.

As I said, if Derrel or dxomark didn't plant the seed in my head that Nikon is miles ahead of Canon I'd probably get a Canon, maybe an APSC or a full frame camera...

But when the Nikon D7200 APSC DOES look miles ahead of most affordable Canons and many full frame cameras on paper, including the Canon 6D full frame camera, I have to hesitate, research, and think about what I should do.


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 12, 2017)

Then again, if I take a nice picture with a Canon camera, it will still be nice, and won't be compared with it's identical picture taken from a Nikon camera.

But there is something to say for getting the best camera you can in your price range as a starting point. The research and comparisons have been done to help us make decision (sometimes!  ) so might as well utilize it, not consider it and then go with the inferior camera!


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 12, 2017)

But yeah, in real life use it seems that Canon cameras are liked every bit as much as Nikon cameras, or more. All of these cameras get 4 and a half star reviews from Joe Citizen at Best Buy, Amazon and Adorama! And in some case the Canons get higher reviews than the Nikons.

But I go with what the nerds in the labs and out in the field say!


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 12, 2017)

At imaging resource, regarding the 6D vs the D610:

"But there are other areas in which the Canon 6D wins which will be of great interest to HDR and effect photography fans. Although both cameras have similar exposure lock and compensation features, the 6D has a much wider bracketing range. Nikon's D610 allows only two or three-frame bracketed exposures, where Canon allows two, three, five, or even seven-shot bracketing. The 6D also boasts better in-camera HDR merging, combining three exposures instead of the two-shot HDR supply by Nikon. And it has a more powerful multiple exposure function, too, allowing a nine-shot merge that's three times as generous as the Nikon's three-shot multiple exposure function."


----------



## Designer (Aug 12, 2017)

Well, it's settled then.  The Canon 6D it is!  Congratulations!


----------



## Braineack (Aug 12, 2017)

yeah, but do you even need any of that?


----------



## Designer (Aug 12, 2017)

Braineack said:


> yeah, but do you even need any of that?


Don't confuse him!  He was making real progress.


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 12, 2017)

Braineack said:


> yeah, but do you even need any of that?



Well I do want in camera HDR. I think I mentioned that.


----------



## Dragster3 (Aug 12, 2017)

Why doesn't anybody ever recommend Pentax? I would love to try one. That's all I ever owned in the 90's.

Are they that bad? The specs seem good. Sorry for the high jack...lol
BTW
I still have my spotmatic.


----------



## cherylynne1 (Aug 12, 2017)

Pentax has a comparatively small but fiercely loyal fan base, from what I've seen. 

Actually, I think they are often recommended for astrophotography work, although I've forgotten what their specific advantage is. 

I've never even seen one, I don't think. The specs and reviews do seem pretty good, though.


----------



## astroNikon (Aug 13, 2017)

cherylynne1 said:


> ... Actually, I think they are often recommended for astrophotography work, although I've forgotten what their specific advantage is.
> ...


The K-1 FullFrame & K3-II models are if you don't have a tracking system (ie, only a tripod and the camera).  ==> Pentax K1 Review: Perfect Astro Camera? - Outdoor Photographer


back to the OP.  You'll have to justify your total budget for your camera.  If you blow too much you may think otherwise of your purchase. So just make sure that you total expense (tripod, lenses, camera) is within your identified budget.  And none of it matters if you just keep reading internet fodder instead of making a decision, buying it and then learning how to use it.


----------



## Benoby (Aug 13, 2017)

I think right now Canon has the fastest autofocus which coud be handy for "shooting" animals, but the built in anti-vibration system in some Nikon lenses is great.


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 13, 2017)

astroNikon said:


> back to the OP.  You'll have to justify your total budget for your camera.  If you blow too much you may think otherwise of your purchase. So just make sure that you total expense (tripod, lenses, camera) is within your identified budget.  And none of it matters if you just keep reading internet fodder instead of making a decision, buying it and then learning how to use it.



My hangup right now is between owning Canon EF lenses and liking the concept of their shooting modes and in camera HDR

vs

Nikons apparently being the better cameras.

Seriously, lets say I splurge for the 6D for $1400, and there's the D610 staring me in the face at $1500 and the numbers say the D610 blows the 6D out of the water! Then I think back to the people that say "forget the numbers, it's more about the skill of the photographer!"

I'm just having a hard time finalizing and justifying one purchase over the other.


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 13, 2017)

According to imaging resource the 6D has slightly better dynamic range and the D610 has slightly better detail. However, going by numbers alone at dxomark a normal person wouldn't even think of buying a 6D over a D610.

Derrel, where are you? You planted many of my seeds of doubt! (ISO invariance an all!)

What are your thoughts on this if I decide between these 2 cameras?


----------



## Braineack (Aug 13, 2017)

The thing that wins it over for me, is not in-body HDR -- which turns over all the creative control to canon, but things like (from the same article you quoted from):

39 focus-points vs 11
9 cross-type points vs. 1
Nikon has a center focus in the dark to -1EV, where the Canon has an advantage with the center point at -3EV (basically the canon can acquire focus in a scene much darker than the Nikon can)
However, the Nikon's center point is good for f/8, the Canon only f/2.8 (basically the Nikon doesnt need fast glass to achieve the focus, and may even negate the issue above if using fast glass)

Those are the technical things that increase your ability to shoot.  In camera HDR, imho, screams gimmick, but mainly because I like doing my own processing and Nikon's sensor doesn't need bracketing in most scenes.  I do however, have my Google Pixel phone set to always do HDR processing.  

Overall the Nikon offers much better costerformance.  I don't see where you're seeing the D610 being more expensive than Canon...  A used D610 (body only) is going to run around $1000-1100.  A Used 6Dmi (body only) is around $1200.

However, the 6D mii probably beats out the D610 since its so much newer and has an improved sensor and AF-module, but the price tag comes with it.


----------



## Braineack (Aug 13, 2017)

TimmyD11 said:


> According to imaging resource the 6D has slightly better dynamic range and the D610 has slightly better detail.



be careful with that quote, the Canon has_ slightly _better DR at_ higher ISO_ levels it says.   Between 100 and 1600ISO, the D610 blows it out of the water.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 13, 2017)

TimmyD11 said:
			
		

> According to imaging resource the 6D has slightly better dynamic range and the D610 has slightly better detail. However, going by numbers alone at dxomark a normal person wouldn't even think of buying a 6D over a D610.
> 
> Derrel, where are you? You planted many of my seeds of doubt! (ISO invariance an all!)
> 
> What are your thoughts on this if I decide between these 2 cameras?



I bought a used Nikon D610 and the MBD-14 grip and three batteries, used, for $849 a month ago at a local brick and mortar photo store (a super-good deal, I realize).The image quality is very high, and even 12-bit raw files can be "worked" to a very high degree. I have not shot many 14-bit .NEF files with it, but if I wanted the absolute, ultimate image manipulation ability, I'd likely shoot 14-bit raw files for the times I needed to do exteme post-capture exposure adjustments (astrophotography for example, or night-time,tined-exposure shotsqwhere I might want to "lift" the exposures in software later and have the absolute best-best possible raw data to work with).

As to the above in-camera HDR differences; the Nikon sensor has a 2.3-EV edge in total dynamic range over the 6D, so, that could get very good in-camera HDR with fewer needed exposures. In my own experience, the 2.3 EV DR advantage is a huge one in favor of the Nikon. The recover-ability of these new Nikon files is superb. It truly,truly is. THIS is where, IMHO, Nikon betters Canon's offerings in general, but Canon *has made* some noticeable sensor advances in the last couple of years. The 80D for example is pretty close to the D3400's performance.

Still, you have the 28-105 and the 85/1.8 EF lenses for Canon and that one other EF lens. My original suggestion was a used Canon 5D or used Canon 6D, for those three lenses. I still stand by that suggestion for you if you want to keep shooting those lenses.


The 95 overall score is VERY high...the 82 overall score is equalled or bettered now by the very best of APS-C cameras, but for me, the FF-sized sensors are what I prefer. I think the FF sensor cameras work the best with the most lenses that are already out there; there is a LOT of Canon EF glass on the new and used market.


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 13, 2017)

Braineack said:


> TimmyD11 said:
> 
> 
> > According to imaging resource the 6D has slightly better dynamic range and the D610 has slightly better detail.
> ...



That graph may be correct but imaging resource ought to correct how they worded the summary paragraph because how they worded it could be interpreted to mean overall OR only at high ISO settings.


"On paper at least, there's not much to separate the Nikon D610 and Canon 6D in the sensor department. Both have nearly-identical sensor area, and while Nikon leads by around 10% in terms of linear resolution, that difference is more modest than the pixel counts of 24.3 megapixels for the D610 and 20.2 megapixels for the 6D might otherwise imply.

Still, if you're shooting with sharp, high-quality glass and aiming for larger print sizes, the Nikon D610 has a slight edge in terms of detail, capturing around 2,700 lines per picture height in our detailed lab testing, where the Canon 6D manages around 2,400 lines. (These figures are for JPEG mode at low ISO and low compression; both cameras can manage perhaps another hundred lines of detail, if you're willing to shoot in raw mode.)

On paper, the Canon 6D looks to have a significant edge in terms of sensitivity, with an upper limit of ISO 102,400 equivalent, where the Nikon D610 tops out at ISO 25,600 equivalent. Our in-depth testing found that the Canon's higher sensitivities were of relatively little utility, however, with ISO 51,200 from the Canon 6D only capable of producing a 4 x 6-inch print, and ISO 102,400 equivalent best avoided altogether.

Crank up the sensitivity, and both cameras will of course suffer the effects of noise (and noise reduction) on image detail. Both cameras provide four-step control over noise reduction, but Canon's NR is heavier-handed, doing a better job of reducing chroma noise in particular, but at the expense of fine detail. (Again, though, if you really care about detail, shoot RAW and convert using Lightroom, Photoshop, Capture One, Bibble, DxO Optics Pro, etc)

We also looked at dynamic range of both cameras, and here there was a slight advantage for the Canon 6D over its rival. Where the Nikon D610 offered a range of about 11 stops in JPEG mode, the 6D bested it slightly with an 11.5-stop range. Switch to raw shooting, and the two were essentially tied.

Image quality, then, isn't a huge point of differentiation between these cameras. Overall, we'd probably call it for the Nikon simply because it offers slightly more detail, but JPEG shooters might find the Canon's better dynamic range and control of chroma noise at high sensitivities appealing."


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 13, 2017)

Braineack said:


> In camera HDR, imho, screams gimmick, but mainly because I like doing my own processing and Nikon's sensor doesn't need bracketing in most scenes.



That may be true, but that is something I would like considering I am an amateur that currently wants simplicity and a shot at fantastic photographs without getting overly involved after I press the button and download them to my computer. 

Also, seems to have pretty good bracketing, so if I ever want to do it the more detailed and time consuming way in the future I can.


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 13, 2017)

Derrel said:


> As to the above in-camera HDR differences; the Nikon sensor has a 2.3-EV edge in totoal dynamic range over the 6D, so, that could get very good in-camera HDR with fewer needed exposures. In my own experience, the 2.3 EV DR advantage is a huge one in favor of the Nikon.



Yeah, that's crossed my mind, that since, with the D610, dynamic range overall in regular shooting is better I might have less of a need for in camera HDR, but I do like Canon's 3 shot merging HDR over Nikon's 2 shot merging HDR.



Derrel said:


> Still, you have the 28-105 and the 85/1.8 EF lenses for Canon and that one other EF lens. My original suggestion was a used Canon 5D or used Canon 6D, for those three lenses. I still stand by that suggestion for you if you want to keep shooting those lenses.



Well, if I can get over the fact that Nikon's specs are so much better then it would be nice to have a 3 lens headstart, even if they might not be the best considering how old they are and how much better newer lenses are with lens technology advancements.



Derrel said:


> The 95 overall score is VERY high...the 82 overall score is equalled or bettered now by the very best of APS-C cameras, but for me, the FF-sized sensors are what I prefer. I think the FF sensor cameras work the best with the most lenses out there, and there is a LOT of Canon EF glass on the new and used market.



Yes, it's the numbers that are causing my hangup and indecision. The D7200 APS-C can be gotten for $999 new and it's overall score is better than the full frame 6D, which is $400 more new. But can I really trust that to mean that I'd get better pictures with the D7200?


----------



## Designer (Aug 13, 2017)

Just for the heck of it, I grabbed this: Canon 6D vs Nikon D7100 Detailed Comparison

and this: Canon 6D vs Nikon D7100

and this: Which one? Canon EOS 6D or Nikon D600 or Nikon D7100

and this: Canon EOS 6D vs. Nikon D7100 - Sensor Comparison

this: Nikon D7100 vs Canon EOS 6D vs Nikon D600 | DxOMark

The Nikon D7100 is only $700. (body only)

So there's that.


----------



## beagle100 (Aug 13, 2017)

I agree, Canon is going to give you better "IQ" image quality and a better selection of lens (and cheaper), it's the reason most pros shoot with Canon.
that said, definitely take a look at* mirrorless* cameras - smaller, lighter with the same features of a DSLR and can use DSLR lens

*www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless*


----------



## Braineack (Aug 13, 2017)

just buy the 6D, take pictures, and enjoy it.    Having the lenses already really puts you ahead.


----------



## Braineack (Aug 13, 2017)

beagle100 said:


> Canon is going to give you better "IQ" image quality and a better selection of lens (and cheaper)



I disagree with every part of this.  And it's all supported by science again.   You and Bill Nye must be BFFs.


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 13, 2017)

Braineack said:


> just buy the 6D, take pictures, and enjoy it.    Having the lenses already really puts you ahead.



Then again, having 25 year old EF lenses on a camera that the authorities say is an inferior camera to the other one I'm considering could be a real bonehead move.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 13, 2017)

TimmyD11 said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > just buy the 6D, take pictures, and enjoy it.    Having the lenses already really puts you ahead.
> ...



Nope...the 85mm f/1.8 Canon EF lens is STILL a very fine lens. Plenty good. I had one for years....a VERY solid,solid performer, and Canon has not updated it. Nikon, OTOH, has updated their 85/1.8 and 84/1.4 AF-S G models, and the 85/1.8 AF-S G from Nikon is a superlatively sharp,crisp,astounding performer for about $400. The Canon 85/1.8 EF is a fine lens performer; the newer Nikkor is a superb performer for landscapers who want excruciating detail, but in my opinion, the Canon 85mm 1.8 might be a "prettier" imager for people pictures.

28-135mm lens....ehhh...on a 20.2 MP sensor, the MP count is low enough...the sensor itself can eke out 2,400 line pairs per mm at max with the best optics possible, so, whatever...at f/4.2 or smaller (f/4.5, f/4.8, f/5.6, etc.) diffraction is going to make almost any lens look less-than-optimal, and face it, 20.2 million pixels on a 24 x 36mm recording medium means that Full Frame_ does not tax the optics all that much_!

Do you recall that over a week ago, I said you ought to consider a used Canon 5D classic or a used Canon 6D, for those three EF lense you already own?

There has NOT been all that much improvment lens-wise in many lens categories in the Canon line since the 1990's. The 85/1.8 EF is still current. As to the "inferiority" of the Canon 6D to the Nikon D610: I really do not buy that argument, since the 6D images I see look good. I see the 6D as very-well-updated 5D Classic, which is and was *a good shooter*. Simple body, better build than the 5D, and all most amateurs will ever need. And decent video. The 6D and 6D-Mark II and Nikon D610 are all in the same,exact product category.

And TBH...in some ways, the Canon camera is simpler in design, and might out-focus the Nikon for one-shot low-light focus acquisition. As to the "f/2.8" comment above...I think it has *Canon's double-precision AF* on lenses f/2.8 or faster, something they premiered years ago, where fast f/2.8 lenses have "double precision" AF...meaning finer gradation of the AF zone's multiple distances, leading to more-precise distance differentiation. RE Nikon to Minus 1 EV on central AF point, Canon to Minus 3.0 EV; the Nikon uses that damned "white light" AF assist system....that fricking NAILS focus with a pop of pure, white light, so it does not require much Minus EV for indoor work...buuuut...that damned white light...Yeeech! *The original 6D was famous for superb central AF point low-light focusing lock-on capability. Perhaps one of that body's more-well-known plusses. *The ability of the newer Nikon AF modules to focus with lenses as slow as f/8 means Teleconverters can be used with slow lense, and AF will still function. it is a way to gauge the relative strength of AF modules, but it's not the only criterion to be used.

And in conclusion, "Our Lord And Savior on A Bicycle....please get thee to a camera store!"  ;-)


----------



## beagle100 (Aug 13, 2017)

TimmyD11 said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > just buy the 6D, take pictures, and enjoy it.    Having the lenses already really puts you ahead.
> ...



I use a 20 year old EF lens on a six month old body - works fine
*www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless*


----------



## Dragster3 (Aug 13, 2017)

I think talking about FF dslr cameras is far from "beginners".

You can't blame the camera if you buy the baddest one right out the gate!!! LMFAO


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 13, 2017)

Dragster3 said:


> I think talking about FF dslr cameras is far from "beginners".
> 
> You can't blame the camera if you buy the baddest one right out the gate!!! LMFAO



True, but I'm really a dormant semi-knowledgeable amateur waking from his slumber!


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 13, 2017)

Derrel said:


> The 80D for example is pretty close to the D3400's performance.



Actually I don't think it is if you go by the dxomark. It gets a dxomark of 86, while the 6D gets a dxomark of 82 and the 80D gets a mark of 79.

What the hell does that even mean honestly?

An entry level APS-C DSLR beats out a full frame camera 3 and a half times it's cost, and the most up to date Canon enthusiast APS-C DSLR costing 3 times as much..........

Should dxomark just be thrown in the trash?


----------



## astroNikon (Aug 13, 2017)

TimmyD11 said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > The 80D for example is pretty close to the D3400's performance.
> ...


you really have to look at individual numbers individually.
Not just the overall.  Overall includes the price and total value.

Otherwise, you should just get the D3400, which truthfully wouldn't do much for me in functionality or anything.

what are your TOP 3 cameras you are looking at ?
then list out your Pros and Cons of each.
and maybe give each pros and cons a weighting

or maybe just go back to sleep to extend your slumber ...


----------



## Pedro_lopez (Aug 14, 2017)

This has been going on for awhile. Exactly how many pictures have you taken while trying to figure out what's the better camera?

This is why they say the best camera is the one you have on you. The camera is the least of your worries. Once you decide what camera, would you rather deal with Nikon glass or canon? I hear you have a few canon so why make the decision so hard?


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## Dragster3 (Aug 14, 2017)

Crazy thread...they are all good in one way or the other...maybe buy something more of a conversation piece, that's also badass...Pentax K1...screw all that popular cameras and go with something a little more...eccentric!

Sent from my RS988 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 15, 2017)

I think I'm going to go with the 6D. May not be the best but it's probably getting up there close to the best!


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 17, 2017)

Alright so I am not fully settled. The answer to the following question will help me decide.

Are there any APS-C DSLR's that you enthusiasts / pros would rather have than the entry level full frame offerings by Canon or Nikon? I'm concerned with IMAGE QUALITY ONLY. I don't care if it has a less advanced focus system or only has one memory card slot or doesn't go beyond 1/4000 of a second shutter speed or anything else.


----------



## Braineack (Aug 17, 2017)

IMHO, if you are concerned with IQ only, then you'd buy the D610 and have one of the best sensors on the market today despite being released in 2012.


----------



## astroNikon (Aug 17, 2017)

TimmyD11 said:


> Alright so I am not fully settled. The answer to the following question will help me decide.
> 
> Are there any APS-C DSLR's that you enthusiasts / pros would rather have than the entry level full frame offerings by Canon or Nikon? I'm concerned with IMAGE QUALITY ONLY. I don't care if it has a less advanced focus system or only has one memory card slot or doesn't go beyond 1/4000 of a second shutter speed or anything else.


So you have a really small budget .. that's what I'm reading.

The Nikon D3400 DX does really good images. But has striped down features from the D5600 DX, which has striped down features from the D7200 DX but all roughly have the same sensor though may not have the same electronics and processing, and everything else.

Just go out and buy the cheapest 20-24mp DX sensor DSLR out there .. I think that's the answer you want ?

Oh, with the D3400 just don't try to add a corded remote release ... they stripped that OEM capability out of it.

or just see Braineack's reply above.


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 17, 2017)

No I don't have a small budget. I have placed my budget in the D610 range: $1500 for camera body, but for $1500 I can either get my foot in the full frame door OR get the best or one of the best APS-C DSLR's by Canon or Nikon.


----------



## astroNikon (Aug 17, 2017)

TimmyD11 said:


> No I don't have a small budget. I have placed my budget in the D610 range: $1500 for camera body, but for $1500 I can either get my foot in the full frame door OR* get the best or one of the best APS-C DSLR's* by Canon or Nikon.



You are contradicting yourself.


TimmyD11 said:


> Are there any APS-C DSLR's that you enthusiasts / pros would rather have than the entry level full frame offerings by Canon or Nikon? I'm concerned with *IMAGE QUALITY ONLY*. *I don't care if it has a less advanced focus system or only has one memory card slot or doesn't go beyond 1/4000 of a second shutter speed or anything else*.



Good Luck.

btw, technically the "entry level FF" is not entry level.  It has *way* more features than the entry level DX models.  It has many features of the upper end DX line, just that it's low end on the FX arena.


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 17, 2017)

Didn't contradict myself. I noticed that cheapest full frame and most expensive APS-C DSLR's are about the same price, so I wanted to know if it was unanimous to go one way or the other.


----------



## Gary A. (Aug 17, 2017)

and the saga continues ...


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 17, 2017)

True Gary but what is better: entry level full frame DSLR or highest end APS-C DSLR, and why?

Especially when considering newer APS-C vs older full frame cameras.


----------



## Designer (Aug 17, 2017)

TimmyD11 said:


> No I don't have a small budget. I have placed my budget in the D610 range: $1500 for camera body, but for $1500 I can either get my foot in the full frame door OR get the best or one of the best APS-C DSLR's by Canon or Nikon.


I'm unaware of what deals you are talking about.  

Please post a link to some offerings of APS-C cameras that cost $1,500.  

(Body only, as that is what I though we were talking about.)  

As I posted a couple of years ago, (see above) the Nikon D7100 is $700 new.  The D7200 is about $1,000 new.


----------



## Designer (Aug 17, 2017)

TimmyD11 said:


> ..entry level full frame DSLR ..


There's another new one on me.  

What "full frame" is called "entry level"?  

I admit that I haven't been spending nearly as much time shopping as you have, so maybe a couple of links can shed some light.


----------



## Braineack (Aug 17, 2017)

TimmyD11 said:


> No I don't have a small budget. I have placed my budget in the D610 range: $1500 for camera body, but for $1500 I can either get my foot in the full frame door OR get the best or one of the best APS-C DSLR's by Canon or Nikon.



This would depend more on what I shoot.  But the "entry level" FF be it 6D or D610, is going to image better than the 7D or D7200 respectively.


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 17, 2017)

Can someone explain to me the higher dxomark score for the APS-C D7200 compared to the full frame 6D?


----------



## Gary A. (Aug 17, 2017)

Depends on what you shoot ... and the size of your final print ...

What I shoot, which is general photography, a little bit of this and a little bit of that, (sports, theatre, Street, family, flowers), 99% of which is in available light ... sensor size does not make a difference. 

In the beginning of dSLR photography, the IQ of FF versus APS-C at 8x10 was truly significant.  APS-C at ISO 1600 was barely acceptable, (a bit worse actually than shooting Tri-X pushed to 1600).  When I upgraded from a 20D to a 5D ... the difference was like night and day in low light. Ultimately I move on to 1Ds which had the IQ and build quality I desied and needed, (I'm hard on my cameras.)

For fun I tried out MFT.  The smaller sensor delivered very digital-ish looking images to my eye, but non-photographers didn't see a difference. The Olympus IBIS is wonderful and went a long way in compensating for low light IQ of small sensors.

Now I shoot with Fuji.  The mirrorless APS-C is a nice compromise between the small footprint of MFT and the IQ of FF.  The Fuji image, to my eye, looks film-esque with the Oly and Panasonic MFT images looking digital and the Canon files looking somewhere in between.  But these visual differences are subtle and to the average viewer, insignificant.  I shoot Fuji because the high quality build of their equipment and equally important, Fuji lenses are all exceptional.

Being a former professional, I tend to buy pro level equipment and I have little to no experience with lesser grade cameras. As a former pro, I think my desires and expectations of my photography are/maybe different than the expectations from most non-professional photographers.

There is no perfect general use camera.  There is no perfect general use sensor format. I personally feel that, for what I shoot and how I shoot, the difference in IQ between FF and APS-C is insignificant. Until recently, Nikon hadn't a high level APS-C camera and most/all of their APS-C lenses are inferior to their FF lenses.  If you go Nikon APS-C, I think you should give serious thought of all FF lenses.  

For new photographers, the grass is always greener ... especially a desire for FF.  Having shot FF, I recognize that FF has no magic.  FF will not make you a better photographer, but it _may_ make some photographs better. 

If you have resigned or thinking of resigning to expensive FF lenses ... then you might as well go FF.  Cameras, unlike lenses, are somewhat disposable. After a few years, usually cameras will have improved enough to warrant an upgrade ... but a good lens is forever (or pretty damn close to forever).


----------



## Designer (Aug 17, 2017)

TimmyD11 said:


> Can someone explain to me the higher dxomark score for the APS-C D7200 compared to the full frame 6D?


I might come down to the difference in sensor technologies.  (Sony vs. Canon.)


----------



## Derrel (Aug 17, 2017)

Entry-level FX Nikon
Is the D610, Canon
Entry-level FF is the 6D. Both are nice.I like FX for the decades' worth of lenses that function as designed.


----------



## Dragster3 (Aug 17, 2017)

Lens are forever! I love shooting with an old lens I bought from flea market. Dying to get my hands on some Russian lenses...whatever you buy, your gonna think you made a mistake...because since you really don't know much about DSLR cameras, and haven't used many different types, you will always think it's greener on the other side. You need to buy something low cost, then see what you need/ desire in a DSLR, go shooting with other people, look at their set-up, and try different cameras.

Sent from my RS988 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 17, 2017)

Designer said:


> TimmyD11 said:
> 
> 
> > Can someone explain to me the higher dxomark score for the APS-C D7200 compared to the full frame 6D?
> ...



Does that score necessarily mean that it thinks THAT APSC-C camera is better than THAT full frame camera?


----------



## Designer (Aug 17, 2017)

TimmyD11 said:


> Does that score necessarily mean that it thinks THAT APSC-C camera is better than THAT full frame camera?


Yes, I'd say it looks that way, according to their tests.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 17, 2017)

TimmyD11 said:


> Can someone explain to me the higher dxomark score for the APS-C D7200 compared to the full frame 6D?



THE D7200 has a DxO Mark dynamic range test result of 14.6 EV....the 6D has a dynamic range result of 12.1 EV; that is a two and one-half EV advantage to the Nikon's sensor. The 6D on the other hand, does better in low light score than the D7200; physically larger pixels almost always perform better in low light than do smaller-sized pixels, which is one area where full-frame cameras usually best smaller-sensored cameras: in low lighting conditions.

The DxO Mark score differences are due to different sensor technology. Now, a 12.1 EV dynamic range sounds good to most people. But a 14.6 EV dynamic range is fantastic; a few years ago we only dreamed of a sensor that could handle such a wide range of exposure values.


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 17, 2017)

Derrel, earlier in this thread someone said that you can go long easy with APS-C and you can go wide easy with full frame. Isn't there advantages of a relatively inexpensive 70 to 200mm lens becoming a 112 to 320mm zoom, especially if that APS-C sensor is an exceptional modern one?

Then someone like me would need a 17mm lens to actually have a 28mm lens for landscape photography. Doesn't seem too terrible.


----------



## BrentC (Aug 17, 2017)

Every day you delay making a decision a kitten dies.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 17, 2017)

TimmyD11 said:


> Derrel, earlier in this thread someone said that you can go long easy with APS-C and you can go wide easy with full frame. Isn't there advantages of a relatively inexpensive 70 to 200mm lens becoming a 112 to 320mm zoom, especially if that APS-C sensor is an exceptional modern one?
> 
> Then someone like me would need a 17mm lens to actually have a 28mm lens for landscape photography. Doesn't seem too terrible.



70-200 is one lens...24-70 is another lens...on the teles or tele-zooms, there's a narrow FOV, which can be hard to utilize indoors. Let's take an 85mm lens; and say we need and *8.47 foot tall field of view*...that FOV is obtained at 20.0 feet on FF, but at 34.5 feet on 1.6 APS-C. At 34.5 feet, camera-to-subject distance starts to make depth of field LESS-shallow, even at wider apertures. Your $2,499 70-200mm f/2.8 portraiture lens has JUST become less-useful as a bacground blurring tool when mounted on an APS-C camera. Your 85mm lens has just become almost useless unless you have 35 to 40 or 50 feet to shoot a full-length shot, or a group portrait, when used on APS-C. Your 70-200 that was sooooo useful at a wedding recepion has now become a sniper-position, narrow-angle lens, somewhat useless inside of 30 feet for MANY types of photos!

Indoors, on a 9-foot-wide seamless backdrop...the APS-C studio portrait shooter now wants an 80-foot-long studio...and for group shots, he ends up at 33-38mm lens settings to get a group into one photo...Uggghhh!

Wide-angles now need aspherical elements for decent performance on tiny sensors...

"Going long" on APS-C also means LESS background blurring with 300 and 400mm lenses at distances in football or soccer, or on wildlife...and with smaller max. f/stop lenses, you end up with fairly unspectacular subject/background separation on APS-C even with long teles.

Your 70-200mm lens NEVER becomes a 112-300mm lens...that's simple math, but it ignores the fact that at 85mm, to get a 6-foot tall man in a full-length shot, you need to be 34.5 feet away from him with an APS-C camera! The difference between shooting at 20 feet with FX camera and 34.5 feet is HUGE.


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 17, 2017)

Derrel said:


> Your 70-200mm lens NEVER becomes a 112-300mm lens...that's simple math



Huh?


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 18, 2017)

What's the matter with a 50mm lens becoming your 85mm portrait lens with APS-C, besides depth of field issues?


----------



## Derrel (Aug 18, 2017)

50mm becomes roughly 75mm, not 85mm. And what's "wrong" is that there are 85mm lenses with superb bokeh characteristics, like Nikon's old 85mm f/1.4 AF-D, affectionately called The Cream machine, for its rendering. Most 50mm lenses are only average in rendering beauty, and many are fairly harsh (Canon and Zeiss have made some awful 50's as far as hashy bokeh). But the issue too is that a 75mm lens is not an 85mm. At the short end...where is the 14mm or 16mm or 17mm equivalent for 1.5x bodies? Does not exist.

The difference is that you've got a $199 lens, a 50mm, being used as a substitute focal length, not the 85mm length, where the lens designs and prices are at the very highest level in many cases. Leica has made a 75mm for years. I used to own a 50mm and a 75mm for full-frame...they are two very different lenses. 75mm angle of view is much wider than the field of view that 85mm gives.

Anyway, I gotta get moving. Suffice it to say that if you cannot understand the 20-foot versus 35 foot example and the_ simple math_ analogy I used to show that equivalency does not mean equality well,I guess I don't have the time to explain why a 70-200 shot on the format it was designed to be used on is nowhere near the same thing when much of the lens's field of view is cropped off; the focal length NEVER changes, but the outside edges of the field of view are simply not recorded when the lens is mounted on an APS-C body. The lens does NOT "grow longer". There are two sides on every coin; narrowing the view of EVERY, single lens mounted is what APS-C does; it does not "magnify the eagle" so to speak.

Good luck in the camera search, Tim. Gotta run.


----------



## Designer (Aug 18, 2017)

You are getting confused over the "crop factor" concept.  Any lens stays what it is, it will not change.  Focal length does not change.  Focal length stays the same.  The focal length is what it is.



TimmyD11 said:


> What's the matter with a 50mm lens becoming your 85mm portrait lens with APS-C, besides depth of field issues?



Now to your question; a 50mm lens will have a different field of view than an 85mm lens.  The angles of each are different.  If you were to fill the frame with someone's face using your 50mm lens, and then compare that with the image you got from your 85mm lens, you would see a difference.  

Hope that helps.


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 18, 2017)

So a 70 to 200mm zoom lens won't essentially give me more zoom range on a camera with an APS-C sensor?


----------



## snowbear (Aug 18, 2017)

TimmyD11 said:


> So a 70 to 200mm zoom lens won't essentially give me more zoom range on a camera with an APS-C sensor?


No, not really.  You get a tighter crop, meaning the angle of view gets narrower, but the focal length, and the apparent size of objects in the viewfinder and un-enlarged image, stays the same.


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 18, 2017)

From Camera Shopper magazine (UK), comparing the Canon 6D to the Nikon D750: 

"The Nikon delivers punchier-looking images and has better autofocus, especially for moving objects. The Canon has better dynamic range and is more able to retain detail in bright highlights and dark lowlights"

and 

"There's very little to choose between the two for dynamic range at the base sensitivity setting of ISO 100. However from ISO 200 and upwards, the 6D gives better detail in lowlights, and more convincing tonal range. This remains the case whether the Canon's Auto Lighting Optimizer and Nikon's Active D-Lighting features are enabled or switched off."

AND WHY ARE THEY COMPARING THE 6D WITH THE D750 AND NOT THE 6D WITH THE D600 OR D610?


----------



## Dragster3 (Aug 18, 2017)

Cell phone pic...if it was taken with a Cannon I would be able to see a flea, a Nikon a flea on the flea, and Pentax we would have an x-ray...

Sent from my RS988 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 18, 2017)

Suppose I primarily want to do landscape photography, but since the landscapes I hope to photograph are in wilderness settings there will naturally be wildlife around, and it would be nice to photograph that too...

Seem to remember long telephoto and zoom lenses being CRAZY money...

So, with the exception of how depth of field behaves, can't I basically go longer with a shorter lens on an APS-C camera...and do it much less expensively that way?


----------



## Dragster3 (Aug 18, 2017)

Yes I use a 400mm old Nikon lens, it's a 600mm on my crop and it works great. No auto focus, full manual. Have to use a tripod and a clicker. 

Sent from my RS988 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## SCraig (Aug 18, 2017)

TimmyD11 said:


> Suppose I primarily want to do landscape photography, but since the landscapes I hope to photograph are in wilderness settings there will naturally be wildlife around, and it would be nice to photograph that too...
> 
> Seem to remember long telephoto and zoom lenses being CRAZY money...
> 
> So, with the exception of how depth of field behaves, can't I basically go longer with a shorter lens on an APS-C camera...and do it much less expensively that way?


An APS/C sensor does ***NOT*** increase the focal length of a lens.  It doesn't.  Engrave that in stone if necessary.

An APS/C sensor is physically SMALLER than a full-frame sensor so it does not cover as much of the frame as a full-frame sensor does.  It's nothing more than cropping the image that the lens sees; that's all, no more magnification, no magic, no nothing.  You can do the exact same thing in virtually any manipulation software by selecting the crop tool.  This is why the APS/C is sometimes referred to as a "Crop Sensor", it crops the view compared to a full frame.


----------



## Dragster3 (Aug 18, 2017)

400mm FF lens on a crop sensor is like a 600mm on a FF. That's what u are viewing in the view finder...

Sent from my RS988 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 18, 2017)

You two just contradicted yourselves.

OK it crops it.

On the same size print, taken at the same spot, of the same subject, one taken with an APS-C camera and one taken with a full frame camera, the APS-C camera would effectively be "zooming in".

But yeah, I guess that would then be like digital zoom, not optical. Usually the less desirable way to get there, but maybe the APS-C can handle it?

As in FAR FROM digital zoom from a point and shoot camera from 15 years ago.

It would look more like "optical" zoom and be of good quality.

Am I wrong?


----------



## Dragster3 (Aug 18, 2017)

It's no a digital zoom, it just uses less of the lens...smaller footprint, that's all...

Sent from my RS988 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## Dragster3 (Aug 18, 2017)

DX 600mm is the same as a FF 400, DX 75mm is a FF 100mm. This is just the image on the sensor comparison... So what you see on the viewfinder looks identical.

Sent from my RS988 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## Dragster3 (Aug 18, 2017)

I botched the numbers...lol DX 400 will look like a FF 400

Sent from my RS988 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## Dragster3 (Aug 18, 2017)

Dx400 is like a 600...don't drive and text FYI.

Sent from my RS988 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## Derrel (Aug 18, 2017)

Dragster3 said:


> 400mm FF lens on a crop sensor is like a 600mm on a FF. That's what u are viewing in the view finder...
> 
> Sent from my RS988 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app



Not quite....the 400mm lens designed for a FF Nikon but shot on a DX_sensor sized camera behaves,"*Sort of like, but not the same exact way*" as a 600mm lens does  when it is shot on a FF sensor.

The 400 does not "blow out" the background nearly as much as does the 600mm lens. The 400mm does not appear to "compress" space as much as the 600 does.

The 400mm _does not magnify things_ nearly as much as a real 600mm lens does. Instead, the smaller sensor just CROPS OFF the outer part of the 400mm's lens's projected image!

I know...I owned the Nikon 400/3.5 for years, and had a 600mm for a time as well...


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 18, 2017)

And how much is a good lens for a full frame camera for taking pictures of grizzly bears at a safe distance going to cost me?

If I compose a nice shot and expose it properly with an APS-C DSLR with a shorter lens on it, aren't I going to get similar results, emotion-wise if perhaps not technically, with a much less expensive lens?


----------



## Derrel (Aug 18, 2017)




----------



## SCraig (Aug 19, 2017)

TimmyD11 said:


> And how much is a good lens for a full frame camera for taking pictures of grizzly bears at a safe distance going to cost me?
> 
> If I compose a nice shot and expose it properly with an APS-C DSLR with a shorter lens on it, aren't I going to get similar results, emotion-wise if perhaps not technically, with a much less expensive lens?


Not really.  If everything else is equal a shorter focal length will have a greater depth of field so the foreground and background focus will look slightly different.

My suggestion, for what it's worth, is to quit micro-analyzing everything.  Find a camera you like and can afford and buy it.  If you make a mistake it isn't the end of the world, it's just a camera.  Regardless of what you buy today in 6 months or a year or two years technology will have left it far behind so if you worry about having the absolute best that suits your situation to a "T" you're never going to find it.

My D7000 was announced in December, 2010 and my D7100 in February, 2013.  I still use both of them, they still do what I want from a camera body, so I have no urge to get anything better.  I had a D90 that I gave to my sister and a D60 before that but technology reached a point where the features of something new were justifiable.  The same will likely happen with my D7xxx bodies (and the D500 is real close!) and when it does I'll get a new one.  But until that happens I'm out taking photographs and not fretting about having the absolute best that I can get.

And, yes, all four of them were APS-C bodies.  I don't need or want a full-frame body, I'm happy with what I have.


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 19, 2017)

Think I will get the 80D until Canon really competes with sensors and has 3 full frame cameras under $2000 like Nikon does.

Or maybe the 77D or t7i, whichever has the newest sensor / processor combo that has the sensor issues at least partially sorted out.

Take advantage of extended zoom range, even if it is artificial.

Buy a wide angle prime or zoom lens.


----------



## Gary A. (Aug 19, 2017)

SCraig said:


> TimmyD11 said:
> 
> 
> > Suppose I primarily want to do landscape photography, but since the landscapes I hope to photograph are in wilderness settings there will naturally be wildlife around, and it would be nice to photograph that too...
> ...


Generally, unlike cropping after the image is captured, cropping in the camera delivers the full complement of sensor MPs to the image, allowing a larger print or a higher quality print at a smaller size.

When comparing similar images, a FF 50% cropped 36mp file, will have less MP's than an uncropped 24mp APS-C.


----------



## BrentC (Aug 19, 2017)

My advice is get to list down various camera and lenses that fit the specs and features you want.   Go to a camera store and hold each one in your hand.   The ergonomics and how they fit in your hand are really important.   If your uncomfortable with it you won't use it as much.
Also bring an SD card and take pictures with each camera.  Later at home you can go over the photos and see which one renders to your taste.


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 19, 2017)

So if I settle on the 80D now can I get help in selecting a very good wide angle zoom or wide angle prime that will be great on the crop sensor camera AND a full frame when I move on to that in a year or two?

I guess what I don't like about the 6D is that it get's it's butt kicked by Nikon and it has only one HDR setting.

Maybe I can enjoy the 80D and it's HDR settings (which I know many of you will roll your eyes about!) and use my 70 to 200 lens for wildlife.

A good zoom lens for a full frame camera for wildlife will cost me much more than a wide angle prime or wide angle zoom for landscape photography on a crop sensor camera.

I can keep costs down with an 80D, purchase a good wide angle lens, enjoy the HDR settings in the Adirondacks this fall, and check in on Canon's full frame camera sensors and costs every once in a while...do the switch when it feels right.

Currently in Best Buy so if somebody convinces me in the next few minutes...!!!


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 20, 2017)

So basically, (correct me if I'm wrong) I can do wildlife pretty well, and less expensively with an APS-C camera because of the magnification factor of relatively modest (focal length) lenses...than buying a full frame camera AND THEN having to buy lenses with more reach......but landscape photography can still be done with a wider lens with an APS-C camera...and these lenses should be more reasonably priced?

If my thinking on this is sound I'm probably ready to purchase the 80D.


----------



## jaomul (Aug 20, 2017)

Your thinking is correct

Wildlife photography is cheaper and lighter with a crop sensor. Fullframe adds bulk and price, and depending on lighting conditions may not always be better.

Landscape can be done with a wide angle on a crop sensor camera. Generally, landscape is done at iso 100, so if you do it correctly you should not be at much of a disadvantage to a fullframe user either.

Of course Fullframe has advantages, but you pay for them one way or another and sometimes they are not required or big enough to worry about


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 20, 2017)

Thanks jaomul.

Another thing that makes me hesitate with buying the 6D is that it's from 2012...and it's replacement is brand new, with a brand new price to go along with it!

And even if I were to splurge for the 6D Mark ii I've read that in some respects it has taken steps backwards from the original.


----------



## astroNikon (Aug 20, 2017)

Yes go buy the 80D .. and NOW.

One of my friends bought the 70D (a few years ago) on my recommendation. Great camera.  Fits his needs perfectly.

Buy the 80D and don't look back !!


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 20, 2017)

Another thing I can do is get the t7i for much less money and put more money into good EF lenses for when it makes sense for me to go full frame (with Canon).

According to dpreview the image quality for the t7i and 80D (jpeg and raw) are "neck and neck"...but the t7i is $400 less.

I just don't know when they will have a $1500 full frame camera that is as good as the D610 or an $1800 full frame camera as good as the D750.

I'm trying to pinpoint what my hangup is. Maybe it's that I have old and usable Canon lenses, although they will eventually be replaced anyway. 

Maybe it's just the HDR shooting modes on some of the Canon cameras which I like. (Then again, with Nikon, REGULAR dynamic range is ALREADY pretty high.) But the 6D doesn't have the full range of HDR shooting modes that their newer cameras have and I don't want to pay the just released price of the 6D Mark ii just for the HDR modes that I want when I know I am buying an otherwise inferior camera to the D610 and D750, for $500 more and $200 more, respectively.

So the hangup / fence sitting continues for a little while longer at least.

Sorry, don't mean to annoy anyone, I'm just thinking out loud via keyboard!


----------



## jaomul (Aug 20, 2017)

At this point I think you have been given a lot of guidance. It's now your decision.


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 20, 2017)

I'm more confused and tangled up with options than ever!


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 20, 2017)

I mean, if I eventually want to be at full frame (as it stands now) why should I go for the 80D, at the 80D price, when there is newer Canon sensor / processor combination technology in the t7i and 77D, image quality is damn near as good, and they cost less? I can put that $300 or $400 into a better lens that will work on everything now and in the future.


----------



## Gary A. (Aug 20, 2017)

Okay Timmy, what is the value of all your Canon lenses?  What is the quality of those lenses?  

The decision seems to be centered around to keep or chuck those lenses. If you have high valued/quality Canon lenses ... then go Canon.  If you have low value/quality lenses then go Nikon.  If your lenses are not 'L' lenses, I think you should go Nikon due to the better sensor. 

Going APS-C now and FF later isn't a bad strategy.  I shoot with two cameras.  I tend to shoot in fluid moving environments and often speed is vitally important to capture the fleeting images I see.  When I first acquired a FF and still had my APS-C, I tossed the tele on the APS-C and a wide on the FF and I was good to go.


----------



## jaomul (Aug 20, 2017)

When you buy a camera you are not just paying for the sensor and processor. Many buy a crop and realize they never need to go fullframe. As someone said earlier, it's only a camera, not a life changing decision. The 80d is a great mix of features/ performance. A t7i will probably make you go into menus more and enjoy using it less. 

Id say it's hard to buy a bad modern ilc from any of the big camera brands at this stage in time


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 20, 2017)

Lenses not great, probably good, or fair.

Probably worth more actually using them than for what I could get for them.

But, granted, they will be phased out no matter which brand's camera I get.

And I will be getting one good lens very soon, but probably not two very soon.

So if I stay Canon I have a few lenses right away.

If I go APS-C the 70-200 lens becomes a wildlife lens. (But maybe not if it doesn't perform well for whatever reason)

So if I stay Canon, that leaves HDR shooting modes, which, as an amateur, I like.

Then again, I don't know how simple or easy it is to create HDR images with bracketed shots with software on a computer.

The timid inexperienced guy in me wants to let Canon do it...then again, maybe it's not all that difficult to do on a computer?

If not for those two thing I'd go buy a Nikon full frame today.


----------



## astroNikon (Aug 20, 2017)

just because you go Canon now doesn't mean you are stuck with it for life.

They all still depreciate, and you can resell them and move to another platform.

get a Canon and later learn how to do HDR on the computer .... you're talking gaining experience and knowledge and that will take time with any camera.


----------



## Gary A. (Aug 20, 2017)

Buy Nikon. I am not a HDR guy, but I think the power of a desktop computer should make an HDR better than in-camera.  But others who do HDR can chime in.


----------



## Gary A. (Aug 20, 2017)

astroNikon said:


> just because you go Canon now doesn't mean you are stuck with it for life.
> 
> They all still depreciate, and you can resell them and move to another platform.
> 
> get a Canon and later learn how to do HDR on the computer .... you're talking gaining experience and knowledge and that will take time with any camera.


It will be harder (lose more investment monies) if you change your platform later than now.  Dump everything go Nikon and purchase Good lenses.  I think Good Lenses are the single most important hardware element in successful photography.


----------



## SCraig (Aug 20, 2017)

You can do HDR with ANY camera.  Shoot three or more bracketed exposures, drop them onto Photomatix (or the software of your choice), move the sliders until you get what you want.

You can even take ONE exposure, adjust the exposure up and down a stop and save three files.  It's actually called "Tone Mapping" but you end up with an HDR image that can be oversaturated to your heart's desire.


----------



## astroNikon (Aug 20, 2017)

Gary A. said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > just because you go Canon now doesn't mean you are stuck with it for life.
> ...


even more than gaining experience and knowledge ?
He just needs to make a decision and move forward.


----------



## Gary A. (Aug 20, 2017)

astroNikon said:


> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> > astroNikon said:
> ...


I stated "hardware element" ... nothing beats experience and knowledge.  Whether Timmy decides to go Canon or to go Nikon doesn't affect experience and knowledge.  In fact, as Timmy stated he wants to ultimately go Nikon 610 (at least at this time), then he'll be higher on the Nikon learning curve if he went Nikon APS-C now than Canon APS-C. 

Experience and knowledge (to a lesser extent) is gained via time behind the viewfinder, not dependant upon camera manufacturer.


----------



## Gary A. (Aug 20, 2017)

PS- I agree on making a decision and moving forward.  If he chooses Canon, it would be a good choice and if he choices Nikon ... another good choice. It would be nice to choose a final system that fulfills his ultimate goal of a FF camera. (But then, who knows if Canon will come out with a camera similar to the 610 with a year or two.)


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 20, 2017)

Another thing I have to be honest with myself about is that as it stands now, when I have the time and friends to do these things with, I am a hiker / backpacker / wilderness explorer first and photographer second. That means I generally run across things worthy of photographing while I am doing these things. I am trying to imagine a time that I might be hiking with a whole lot of photography equipment, including huge heavy expensive lenses. Realistically I won't want to be doing that unless my gut feeling tells me I will be almost guaranteed to run into wildlife on these excursions.

Also, unfortunately, I may not always run into things usually worthy of photographing at the right time of day. Hikes are usually planned to do during daylight, to do it and make it out by a decent time, not necessarily timed to come across that beautiful view at optimum time, with sunlight coming from the right direction.

Perhaps some day I will plan trips and excursions around photographing specific places and things. Right now I'd just be lucky to find people that want to do these kinds of trips with me...and can.

I dream of Denali trips...and bush plane trips into northern British Columbia, and maybe Yukon, but seems like the years fly by without meeting people that want to do these things.

Anyway, back to photography. 

So a shorter focal length lens essentially goes longer on an APS-C DSLR. That means cheaper and lighter and more compact. Probably awesome too, if slightly less awesome than on a full frame camera with a big honking lens.

Lens for wildlife probably doesn't need to be a super fast 1.4 or 2.8 either. So we're talking a zoom lens at 75 to 250mm at 4.0 or something? 250 on APS-C goes to 400. Can this lens be gotten under $1500? Does Tamron or Sigma really sell lenses for less that are every bit as good as Canon or Nikon lenses?

Canon sells a 16 to 35 4.0 or something like that for about $1000. That would cover landscapes in APS-C or full frame.

Maybe I could shoot wildlife with a bridge camera and be more serious about landscapes with an SLR since that is what I am more passionate about.

Still not exactly sure!

;(


----------



## beagle100 (Aug 20, 2017)

TimmyD11 said:


> I mean, if I eventually want to be at full frame (as it stands now) why should I go for the 80D, at the 80D price, when there is newer Canon sensor / processor combination technology in the t7i and 77D, image quality is damn near as good, and they cost less? I can put that $300 or $400 into a better lens that will work on everything now and in the future.




the Canon 80D is fine, you'll get better image quality than Nikon (and certainly better and cheaper lenses)
but if you like smaller and lighter for hiking and backpacking  go *mirrorless*
*www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless*


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 20, 2017)

Is there a "crop factor" with mirrorless or is focal length 1:1 ?


----------



## Gary A. (Aug 20, 2017)

"Awesome" is an element of the photographer... not necessarily the lens or camera.  Sony makes a FF inchangeable lens mirrorless camera(s), Fuji, Canon and Nikon are APS-C only, Pnansonic and Olympus are MFT.


----------



## Gary A. (Aug 20, 2017)

Good mirrorless cameras, which are equal to a dSLR in capability are generally a bit more expensive than an equivalent dSLR.


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 20, 2017)

So I may go down in size but if I keep the quality high the cost is going up with mirrorless?


----------



## Derrel (Aug 20, 2017)

We thought that, less than an hour ago, you'd settled on a Canon 80D d-slr?


----------



## Gary A. (Aug 20, 2017)

I shoot Fuji, so I'll speak to Fuji.  Fuji is a bit of a niche camera.  It is designed to look retro and to operate similarily.  All the primary controls, aperture, shutter speed, ISO, et al, are directly and manually activated.  Manual controls must cost more to implement than menu driven controls.  Fuji cameras have much more metal than similar dSLR's, Fuji XF lenses are all metal and Fuji has a much smaller marketplace, making 100,000 Fuji's must be more expensive than making 1,000,000 dSLR's.  (Economy of scale.)

In Fuji's case, yes they are more expensive than a comparable dSLR, but I can see where that extra money is going to.


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 20, 2017)

Gary A. said:


> "Awesome" is an element of the photographer... not necessarily the lens or camera



Granted. I meant awesome providing I could provide the awesome...as in in no way held back or limited because of being APS-C and not full frame.


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 20, 2017)

Derrel said:


> We thought that, less than an hour ago, you'd settled on a Canon 80D d-slr?



Nope, still kicking around the pros and cons inside my head.

Arguments to be made for t7i or 77D all the way up to to a D610.


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 20, 2017)

I remember Tamron and Sigma as a lens you'd get if you just didn't care or if you couldn't afford what you should get 30 years ago.

Is my understanding that they are actually respectable now correct?


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 20, 2017)

You guys have answered a lot of questions and I'm very appreciative but sometimes my best questions, the ones I really am eager to inquire about, go unanswered.

Money being no object, are there Tamron or Sigma lenses you'd prefer to have over the camera manufacturers lenses?


----------



## SCraig (Aug 20, 2017)

I have 3 Sigma lenses because they are what I wanted, not because of cost.


----------



## cherylynne1 (Aug 20, 2017)

The Sigma Art series are designed to be outstanding lenses by any standard. 

However, honestly, if money were no object, I would probably go with Sony G-master (Sony's equivalent of Canon L) and Zeiss lenses (because autofocusing Zeiss is one of the biggest perks of being a Sony shooter. ) I'd prefer something made for only Sony. Is it a perceived value thing? Yeah, definitely. 

I know Sigma makes excellent optics. But when I had to send my rented Zeiss 85 back, I literally cried a little. I doubt Sigma would make me feel like that.


----------



## Dragster3 (Aug 20, 2017)

just remember... the camera is the "film", the lens is still the "lens".

When film was king, the camera didn't mean anything... the quality was in the lens and the film.

Stop asking questions about opinions, all you will get is more confused.

the film is now the camera, and if 35mm film was good enough for you 20 years ago, then a crop camera will be fine.

Anyone? Good explanation? I think a lot of people forget about what is really important.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 20, 2017)

Dragster3 said:


> just remember... the camera is the "film", the lens is still the "lens".
> 
> When film was king, the camera didn't mean anything... the quality was in the lens and the film.
> 
> ...



Yes, a good explanation, Dragster3, I agree!

A little over 10 years ago, a college-era photo friend of mine brought over the THEN-new, current, Canon EOS 10D d-slr, and we shot a bunch of photos of his wife and young son with it, using my Speedotron studio flash system (itself from the 1980's). We both were of the opinion that at ISO 100, the 6-megapixel 10D was better than the ISO 100 color films that we'd shot for years: more detail (down to young-child's eyebrow and eyelash hair detail and definition) and finer "grain" than ISO 100 color film, eitger slide or color negative, in 35mm size.

Yeah...today's APS-C cameras at lower ISO levels match or beat 120 rollfilm performance. Modern, higher-MP digital SLR and mirrorless image quality is better than what we had for decades and decades.


----------



## Gary A. (Aug 20, 2017)

cherylynne1 said:


> The Sigma Art series are designed to be outstanding lenses by any standard.
> 
> However, honestly, if money were no object, I would probably go with Sony G-master (Sony's equivalent of Canon L) and Zeiss lenses (because autofocusing Zeiss is one of the biggest perks of being a Sony shooter. ) I'd prefer something made for only Sony. Is it a perceived value thing? Yeah, definitely.
> 
> I know Sigma makes excellent optics. But when I had to send my rented Zeiss 85 back, I literally cried a little. I doubt Sigma would make me feel like that.


Zeiss makes native mount, AF lenses for a number of platforms.  I personally own AF Zeiss 12mm, 32mm and 50mm (macro) for my Fuji cameras.


----------



## cherylynne1 (Aug 20, 2017)

Gary A. said:


> cherylynne1 said:
> 
> 
> > The Sigma Art series are designed to be outstanding lenses by any standard.
> ...


 
Yeah, I guess I was thinking more as vs. Nikon or Canon. I always forget about Fuji. Do they make autofocusing lenses for anyone else besides Sony and Fuji?


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 21, 2017)

How much can I expect to sell my 77D or 80D for in a few years if I buy it now and wait for the cost of the 6D Mark ii to come down?


----------



## jaomul (Aug 21, 2017)

TimmyD11 said:


> How much can I expect to sell my 77D or 80D for in a few years if I buy it now and wait for the cost of the 6D Mark ii to come down?



I'll give you ten dollars for it in 3 yrs subject to inspection


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 21, 2017)

Yeah, that was a serious question about what I could expect for depreciation...to factor in...if I wanted to just take the full frame plunge right now. I don't want to lose a boatload of money on a camera I will use only on the rare trip and occasion every year. (but will hope to use more as time goes on.)


----------



## jaomul (Aug 21, 2017)

You can't tell the future price of electronics. Next week some new company releases some new camera that is better than any camera in its price range. This camera comes with clip out adapters that can use any variety of lenses. Nobody wants your second hand relic. 

Pawn shops are full of secondhand crap electronics that nobody wants even though they were top dog a few long years ago.

Think of all the money you are saving and photos you're not taking worrying about depreciation.


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 21, 2017)

Just so you guys know, I'm currently not missing out on taking photographs with this prolonged research and decision making...I want to have this by the time I hope to go back out to the Canadian Rockies the third week in September.

Anybody sell anything recently to get an idea of what percentage of original purchase price (new) I can expect to sell for used?


----------



## cherylynne1 (Aug 21, 2017)

TimmyD11 said:


> Just so you guys know, I'm currently not missing out on taking photographs with this prolonged research and decision making...I want to have this by the time I hope to go back out to the Canadian Rockies the third week in September.
> 
> Anybody sell anything recently to get an idea of what percentage of original purchase price (new) I can expect to sell for used?



I'm sorry, but you're completely wrong there. If you wait until the day before you leave to buy a camera, you'll spend your entire trip trying to figure it out. It takes at least a month to get familiar enough with your camera to be able to change settings and everything without looking, and longer than that when you need to learn the basics of photography in the first place. You are way, way behind, and dropping more every day. 

You can't even get a general idea of selling used, because every item from every company is different and no one can predict what will happen to the market in a few years. You'll get less than you paid for it, that's probably as specific as anyone can get.


----------



## SCraig (Aug 21, 2017)

TimmyD11 said:


> Anybody sell anything recently to get an idea of what percentage of original purchase
> price (new) I can expect to sell for used?



If you're lucky maybe 50%.


----------



## Dragster3 (Aug 21, 2017)

But it used out the gate and never loose a dime...no matter what you buy the pic will look the same as my $75 d5000. It will take you months just to learn some of the features of the new cameras. Don't get me wrong I would love to have a d7500 so I can do bigger prints...16x20 is the max for my $75 body. 
I love this rediculous thread...
Oh you better post some shots...

Sent from my RS988 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## beagle100 (Aug 21, 2017)

TimmyD11 said:


> Just so you guys know, I'm currently not missing out on taking photographs with this prolonged research and decision making...I want to have this by the time I hope to go back out to the Canadian Rockies the third week in September.
> 
> Anybody sell anything recently to get an idea of what percentage of original purchase price (new) I can expect to sell for used?



with Canon - 80% resell rate
with Nikon -  60% resell rate
I've heard there could be a 50% resell rate with the others

www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 21, 2017)

Suppose we do this in reverse! I buy my first lens!

I worked a 10 hour day so I haven't had time to resume thinking about this!

But now I'm back at it...a glass of Abita Purple Haze and trying to figure what camera to get...wondering if I'll get back to Jasper NP to take some pictures!


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 21, 2017)

Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 Art DC HSM Lens for Canon

vs

Canon 16-35 mm f/4 EF L IS USM Lens

Curious


----------



## cherylynne1 (Aug 21, 2017)

If you do go to Jasper, go to Syrahs of Jasper. I used to be friends with the chef, Jason. I don't think he'd remember me anymore or anything, but you should still try the cheesecake.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 21, 2017)

TimmyD11 said:


> Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 Art DC HSM Lens for Canon
> 
> vs
> 
> ...



Curious, indeed.


----------



## Dragster3 (Aug 21, 2017)

Silly. Buy the extended battery grip first...duh! 
Once u but the lens your married to that camera, according to every post here you only have 4 choices... Nikon FF, Nikon crop, Canon FF and Canon crop...4 lenses. LMFAO

Sent from my RS988 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 22, 2017)

I have to resolve these things, I go to bed thinking about this and it keeps me from sleeping soundly.

The lens question was a serious one. I plan to have a zoom in that range, regardless of camera type, unless I can be convinced that it's MUCH better to have two primes instead.


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 22, 2017)

If the 6D had more HDR modes, wasn't 5 years old, and didn't get it's ass kicked by Nikon I'd get it.

If the 6D Mark ii wasn't $2000 and I didn't read that in some regards it took steps backwards from the original I'd get it.

If I didn't already have Canon lenses and Nikon had more HDR shooting modes, or I felt certain that I could learn how to create beautiful HDR's with bracketed shots in software I'd get the D610.

Then again, Canon only saved HDR shots in JPEG and I understand I should be getting away from that.


----------



## astroNikon (Aug 22, 2017)

HDR is a "processed" image
RAW file formats are "unprocessed"

Anytime you use any feature in the camera to change the image it will be processed, and saved as a JPEG or TIFF.


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 22, 2017)

Then again, how nerdy and wonkish are these nitpicking comparisons of dynamic range and image quality and noise levels at higher ISO's anyway? I'm a guy that is use to 35mm film, cell phone and early 21st century point and shoot photography anyway! Images created with modern APS-C cameras are probably going to blow my mind, whether it's the D7200 or 80D...and photographs taken with a full frame camera, whether it's the D610 or a 5 year old 6D with inferior dxomarks will probably REALLY blow my mind regardless!


----------



## SCraig (Aug 22, 2017)

The comparisons of dynamic range, image quality, and noise levels are anything but nerdy or wonkish, they are important criteria of how well a camera body performs.  in fact they are the *ONLY* important criteria of how well a camera body works.  Fluff like style modes and build-in HDR and swivel screens or any of the other myriad "Stuff" have absolutely zero bearing on how well a camera body can render a scene.

The first thing I do when I get a new camera is to go through the menus and disable as much of the built-in junk as I can.  The last thing I want a camera body to do is to help me improve my photos with all the built-in nonsense.  I want the file I download from my camera to my computer to be as generic as possible.  I'll finish it the way I want it to be.


----------



## astroNikon (Aug 22, 2017)

TimmyD11 said:


> Then again, how nerdy and wonkish are these nitpicking comparisons of dynamic range and image quality and noise levels at higher ISO's anyway? I'm a guy that is use to 35mm film, cell phone and early 21st century point and shoot photography anyway! Images created with modern APS-C cameras are probably going to blow my mind, whether it's the D7200 or 80D...and photographs taken with a full frame camera, whether it's the D610 or a 5 year old 6D with inferior dxomarks will probably REALLY blow my mind regardless!


Don't get too far ahead of yourself.

I used to do film.  Then got back into digital with an old Nikon.  Then got back in again with a point & shoot.
Then bought a new nikon DSLR some 4+ years ago.

You still have to learn how to use the camera.
Disregard what you think you know.

Just make a decision, which you already did, and get a camera already.
a DSLR is a very complex camera that allows you full control over a multitude of functions.  I always did things the easy way on a Canon AE-1 and later Nikon N80 & D70.  Everything I thought I knew was really nothing.  I had to learn everything as a newbie.  P&S and Cell cameras will probably be stellar in comparison to your DSLR images at the beginning.  Thus the reason you need time to learn it.

A good DSLR or mirrorless really brings out how bad someone really knows photography.


----------



## Gary A. (Aug 22, 2017)

I echo astroNikon.  A dSLR is like a race car.  Just because you drive a Corolla around town, doesn't mean you can manage to drive a Formula 1. 

One of the greats in 'early' photography is Ansel Adams.  He would "previsualize" the image in his mind, then adjust the camera to capture his imagined image.  You attain consistency and the skill of capturing how you see, (as opposed to what you see), by shooting, shooting again and then shooting some more.  Becoming familiar with your equipment, an intimacy of adjusting your setting to reflect your previsualized image ... semi automatically, without looking at the camera, knowing the FOV, DOF and sharpness of each lens and how each lens will capture the image at closeup, mid-range and long-range can best and often only be attained through usage.  

There is no perfect camera, there is no right or wrong camera ... remember that whatever camera you purchase, whatever format you buy ... the grass will always be greener ...


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 22, 2017)

Just when I think you guys will tell me that no matter what camera I choose it will be phenomenal, making me feel at ease that I can't make a mistake, you make the case that cameras are different and my research must go on!


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 22, 2017)

I like this one. I'm going to share it again in the hopes that someone responds to that specifically.

If the 6D had more HDR modes, wasn't 5 years old, and didn't get it's ass kicked by Nikon I'd get it.

If the 6D Mark ii wasn't $2000 and I didn't read that in some regards it took steps backwards from the original I'd get it.

If I didn't already have Canon lenses and Nikon had more HDR shooting modes, or I felt certain that I could learn how to create beautiful HDR's with bracketed shots in software I'd get the D610.

Then again, Canon only saved HDR shots in JPEG and I understand I should be getting away from that.


----------



## astroNikon (Aug 22, 2017)

TimmyD11 said:


> Just when I think you guys will tell me that no matter what camera I choose it will be phenomenal, making me feel at ease that I can't make a mistake, you make the case that cameras are different and my research must go on!


Your choice of a camera isn't as important as 
how you choose to learn and use it.

You can give a $10,000 camera to a newbie and they will make junk images.
Or give a $200 camera to a Pro and they will make stellar images.


----------



## astroNikon (Aug 22, 2017)

TimmyD11 said:


> I like this one. I'm going to share it again in the hopes that someone responds to that specifically.
> 
> If the 6D had more HDR modes, wasn't 5 years old, and didn't get it's ass kicked by Nikon I'd get it.
> 
> ...


To me this is what you are stating:
(1) the 6D is OUT
(2) the 6D mk II is OUT
(3) you are more comfortable with Canon for HDR modes and don't want to invest the time or effort to learn to do it on a computer.

which leaves the 80D
and
(4) you really don't understand the difference of JPEG and RAW file formats and the benefit/costs of each format.

which still leaves the 80D


----------



## jaomul (Aug 22, 2017)

I have a friend who has used a 6d and got many prizes with his images. 

If you can't get good images with any modern dslr, the problem probably is not the camera


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 22, 2017)

We have established that if the photographs aren't good it's not the cameras fault.

I'd still like to settle this in the next day or two and then live with it for the next year or two at least. Then I will get on with blaming myself with whatever camera and lenses I choose.


----------



## jaomul (Aug 22, 2017)

Oh the drama


----------



## Derrel (Aug 22, 2017)

A week and a day!





Buy a camera....sooooon!


----------



## astroNikon (Aug 22, 2017)




----------



## limr (Aug 22, 2017)

I dunno, I say we start an over/under bet on this thread


----------



## vintagesnaps (Aug 22, 2017)

Are you considering used? so you can later on upgrade or trade in/sell and get something different if need be. Have you gone into a store and tried any of the ones you've mentioned? see what you think you'll like (or not like).

I'm a longtime film photographer; I found there was some learning and adjustment to using a digital camera. The best thing I did was to start shooting Raw and using manual settings - then it all made sense for me. It probably is different for everybody depending on what you've used before.


----------



## Dragster3 (Aug 22, 2017)

I think you should throw out an exact number ...$$$ and everyone make a list of what they would purchase. I'm ready...

Sent from my RS988 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## vintagesnaps (Aug 22, 2017)

If you already have Canon lenses why not go with a Canon body? Then in a year or two if you find you really want to do HDR then maybe upgrade, sell, whatever to something else. 

You might be thinking too far ahead wanting a Nikon whatever for HDR. Down the road you may still want that, or realize you don't need it and won't want it after all. 
Or realize most of the HDR out there looks like crap anyway...  
Apparently HDR can look good if done well, I just don't think I've ever seen much done well because to me it looks overdone and artificial and I don't get why people like it. If you do want that option eventually, by then there may be new cameras out that would give you other choices anyway.


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 22, 2017)

Dragster3 said:


> I think you should throw out an exact number ...$$$ and everyone make a list of what they would purchase. I'm ready...
> 
> Sent from my RS988 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app



$2500, one lens, one camera body. 

Most likely Canon, to feel good about using the lenses I already own, until they are phased out with better.

Nothing used.


----------



## Dragster3 (Aug 22, 2017)

vintagesnaps said:


> Are you considering used? so you can later on upgrade or trade in/sell and get something different if need be. Have you gone into a store and tried any of the ones you've mentioned? see what you think you'll like (or not like).
> 
> I'm a longtime film photographer; I found there was some learning and adjustment to using a digital camera. The best thing I did was to start shooting Raw and using manual settings - then it all made sense for me. It probably is different for everybody depending on what you've used before.


I shoot raw and jpeg so I can get a feel for the pic. All manual all the time...if I had more $$$ I would never use a zoom lens...ever.

Sent from my RS988 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 22, 2017)

astroNikon said:


> (3) you are more comfortable with Canon for HDR modes and don't want to invest the time or effort to learn to do it on a computer.



I DO like Canon's HDR shooting modes, which the 6D lacks.

I guess it's a bummer that it's only saved in JPEG.

I WOULD like to learn how to HDR with software on the computer but fear it's difficult and / or time consuming to do properly, so I'd like to fall back on Canon's HDR shooting modes that seem to get pretty good results.

I would like to use my Canon lenses until they are phased out with better ones.

It would be nice to multiply my 70 to 200 lens by 1.6 for a possible wildlife lens until I get something better, but maybe that shouldn't be one of the "criteria".

I'd like the 6d if it weren't 5 years old and didn't lack HDR shooting modes.

I'd like the Mark ii if it weren't $2000.

The D610 would be an awesome camera if I felt confident I could do HDR's with software on the computer with relative ease and it felt OK to let go of my Canon lenses. (Probably get much less for them than they are worth to me or worth in my mix of lenses with a Canon camera).


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 22, 2017)

Dragster3 said:


> if I had more $$$ I would never use a zoom lens...ever



Well, wonder how much Canon 20mm and 30mm L prime lenses cost. Wouldn't have to be crazy fast for landscapes, although would be nice to have one fast one for dabbling in astrophotography.

Otherwise I'm thinking about the Canon 16 to 35 4.0 or whatever as my first lens in almost 25 years.


----------



## Dragster3 (Aug 22, 2017)

Forget auto HDR, say u got a great shot and u just wasted it because you only shoot jpeg...you can do HDR better than the onboard auto HDR...sorry Canon. If you shoot all raw you can do anything, you shoot auto HDR your stuck. Anyways you answered your own question, one is too old, one doesn't have the features you want. Canon no.

Sent from my RS988 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## Dragster3 (Aug 22, 2017)

My $2500 camera...
D7500                     $1000
Tokina 10-16.         $400
DX vr 18-55.           $250
DX 85mm.              $450
Used 200mm.        $75
Used 400mm         $75
Faux speed light.    $75
Tripod used.           $75
Used p filter ND.     $30
P filter polar.           $25
Pray I never need a 100-150 lens and use one of my kids back packs...I went over...
You screwed if u wanna go new, $2500 doesn't get u much...lmao 


Sent from my RS988 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## Dragster3 (Aug 22, 2017)

Nothing worse than going somewhere to shoot pics and you don't have the right ****.

Sent from my RS988 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## limr (Aug 22, 2017)

If I had $2500 and was hell bent on a dslr, I would buy a Pentax K1 and a fast 50mm prime.


----------



## Dragster3 (Aug 22, 2017)

Hell yeah...my real list...
K1.     $2000
All used k lenses I can buy for $500 that's a lot of lenses...

Sent from my RS988 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 22, 2017)

Dragster3 said:


> You screwed if u wanna go new, $2500 doesn't get u much...lmao



Don't plan on getting everything all at once, that's my initial budget for body and one lens. Wide angle zoom or wide angle prime.

For now.


----------



## Dragster3 (Aug 22, 2017)

I wish more people would give their hypothetical setups...

It's always impressive when someone gets great shots with a crap setup...

You don't need fancy equipment, especially auto HDR...Use your cellphone if you want HDR for dummies.


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 22, 2017)

I like the idea of HDR. There is nothing I hate more than a washed out sky.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 22, 2017)

Dragster3 said:


> I wish more people would give their hypothetical setups...
> 
> It's always impressive when someone gets great shots with a crap setup...
> 
> You don't need fancy equipment, especially auto HDR...Use your cellphone if you want HDR for dummies.



I"ve been limited to my iPhone SE during the days lately...otherwise my walking around kit is a Domke shoulder bag, ugly black heavy canvas, unpadded, with a Nikon D610, the 24/2.8 Ai-S; the 50/1.8 G, the 85/1.8 G, the AF-D 180mm /2.8 ED~IF; the 70-300 VR-G; the 60 AF-D Micro~Nikkor; the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 AF-SP macro (25+ years old,plastic barrel);the lenses I shoot most shots per day are the 24,50,85,180,and 70-300.


----------



## Dragster3 (Aug 22, 2017)

TimmyD11 said:


> I like the idea of HDR. There is nothing I hate more than a washed out sky.



Sure, but you need to Fix it... Not the camera.


----------



## beagle100 (Aug 25, 2017)

TimmyD11 said:


> I like the idea of HDR. There is nothing I hate more than a washed out sky.



yes, washing out the sky is bad (especially during eclipses)
*www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless*


----------



## TimmyD11 (Sep 7, 2017)

So I just arranged to go back to Banff and Jasper next week. Can anyone suggest one great lens for landscapes if I purchase the 6D this weekend? I'm leaning towards the Canon 16 to 35 4.0 L unless I'm convinced there is something better in that price range or below.


----------



## Dragster3 (Sep 7, 2017)

I don't like big zoom lens...10-20 hsm, after that all prime...if your gonna go zoom buy used. That's my $0.02. 

Sent from my RS988 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## TimmyD11 (Sep 7, 2017)

Well I could get a Canon 20mm and 28mm lens for the cost of that zoom but neither will be L lenses.


----------



## Dragster3 (Sep 7, 2017)

It's full frame, 20-28 is plenty wide...just get a 35, 50, 85, 200 and ur good...

Sent from my RS988 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## beagle100 (Sep 9, 2017)

TimmyD11 said:


> Well I could get a Canon 20mm and 28mm lens for the cost of that zoom but neither will be L lenses.



that's OK, zooms are more versatile, primes offer larger apertures and (in general) sharper
*www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless*


----------



## jaomul (Sep 9, 2017)

L in the lens title could as easily be bs


----------



## petrochemist (Sep 9, 2017)

TimmyD11 said:


> Designer, my current only NEED for a full frame camera is the likelihood that I get a camera that will keep me content for a long time, satisfied that I won't be experiencing any "woulda / coulda / shoulda" with an APS-C camera.
> 
> As I said, if Derrel or dxomark didn't plant the seed in my head that Nikon is miles ahead of Canon I'd probably get a Canon, maybe an APSC or a full frame camera...
> 
> But when the Nikon D7200 APSC DOES look miles ahead of most affordable Canons and many full frame cameras on paper, including the Canon 6D full frame camera, I have to hesitate, research, and think about what I should do.


That's DEFINITELY not a need for FF then. 
If you do go for one there will be occasions on hikes where you think I wish I had my camera for this, but I just didn't fancy lugging it around on the off chance. I sometimes even get that with my MFT kit which is considerably lighter than a FF kit covering the same FOV range.
My 5 year old MFT really struggles for any astrophotography, but with a reasonable middle of the road camera you might get a fair balance for your conflicting requirements.
Alternatively you could go with 2 camera systems one for near base & a much smaller one for backpacking. Any single system you get it won't be ideal for everything, just be warned that can lead to severe GAS - I have MFT, APSC, FF, MF & LF options (the last 3 only as film)...


----------



## TimmyD11 (Sep 9, 2017)

So I just purchased the Canon 6D and the Canon 16-35mm f4 L lens as my landscape lens. I just thought I'd let everybody know because you all gave input (and I appreciate it). I think I will be pretty happy.

Now if only the fires would stop in BC for my trip to Banff and Jasper next week. Well I don't want to be selfish, hopefully they stop for all the people that live there.

If they don't I hope the airlines cooperate with me about switching flights to a different destination. Don't think the Olympic National Park is on fire, and nothing west of it can be on fire because only the Pacific is west of there!


----------



## Dragster3 (Sep 9, 2017)

F Finally...get as many pics/ use in before your trip!


----------



## beagle100 (Sep 9, 2017)

TimmyD11 said:


> So I just purchased the Canon 6D and the Canon 16-24mm f4 L lens as my landscape lens. I just thought I'd let everybody know because you all gave input (and I appreciate it). I think I will be pretty happy.
> 
> Now if only the fires would stop in BC for my trip to Banff and Jasper next week. Well I don't want to be selfish, hopefully they stop for all the people that live there.
> 
> If they don't I hope the airlines cooperate with me about switching flights to a different destination. Don't think the Olympic National Park is on fire, and nothing west of it can be on fire because only the Pacific is west of there!



it's actually 16-35mm but hey, who's counting all the millimeters 
enjoy your trip
*www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless*


----------



## TimmyD11 (Sep 10, 2017)

Yes, typo...typing without thinking!


----------



## TimmyD11 (Sep 10, 2017)

Correct, 16-35.


----------



## SquarePeg (Sep 10, 2017)

Derrel said:


> Dragster3 said:
> 
> 
> > I wish more people would give their hypothetical setups...
> ...



I hope that bag has wheels!  I don't think I could walk with that walking around kit.  

@TimmyD11    Just a quick comment that ruling out used gear you're wasting money.  Most used gear, especially when bought from the big online retailers, is indistinguishable from new.  

Does this thread take the record for longest "what should I buy" thread?


----------



## TimmyD11 (Sep 10, 2017)

SquarePeg said:


> @TimmyD11    Just a quick comment that ruling out used gear you're wasting money.  Most used gear, especially when bought from the big online retailers, is indistinguishable from new.



When I think of used I think of "How used?"...as in, I wonder how used and spent it is, how close it is to breaking down. There is really no way of knowing that. So I feel more comfortable with a new 6D instead of a used 5D Mark X.

Now some people may have done well with used gear, and some people may have gotten burned.

6D is a good "new" spot for me getting back into photography. If I get the bug as much as I hope to then maybe I will get the 5D Mark X new when I have the money to do so and after I have obtained a few lenses.

By the way, when cameras break, are camera repairers good at repairing?


----------



## Dragster3 (Sep 10, 2017)

That is terrible reasoning. Most people are honest, if not everyone would get burned. All my photo stuff is used. And u already bought a professional FF camera, what "upgrade" could you possibly justify...
BTW Irma is a total dud. I'm bored!

Sent from my RS988 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## SquarePeg (Sep 10, 2017)

TimmyD11 said:


> When I think of used I think of "How used?"...as in, I wonder how used and spent it is, how close it is to breaking down. There is really no way of knowing that.



That's what the ratings are for.  Some sites use 1-9 and others use letters.  If you're talking about well known online retailers like B&H and Adorama etc. the ratings are reliable. For cameras you can ask for the shutter count.  I once bought a used body that had only 188 shutter activations (out of an expected 100k).  Just trying to help you stretch your budget.  I bought most of my gear used and had zero issues.  It's an expensive hobby, you need to save where you can.


----------



## Dragster3 (Sep 10, 2017)

Expensive hobby? This is peanuts! My 1980's freestyle BMX bike collection dwarfs the cost of DSLR camera equipment. I can't think of a cheaper hobby! Lol

Sent from my RS988 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## Dragster3 (Sep 10, 2017)

Hijack time





Sent from my RS988 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## benhasajeep (Sep 10, 2017)

SquarePeg said:


> TimmyD11 said:
> 
> 
> > When I think of used I think of "How used?"...as in, I wonder how used and spent it is, how close it is to breaking down. There is really no way of knowing that.
> ...



I have a mix of New and used.  Of 9 digital bodies so far I bought 2-refurbished.  Some lenses I bought new.  Some used.  I give new and used a good testing when I first get it.  As some have run into, even new can have a problem every now and then.  I tend to buy new if used price is real close to the new price.  But if a deal is available, I will jump on a used item.  I have purchased over a dozen items from KEH.  I have only sent one back to them.  They paid the return shipping.  I just picked up 2 more lenses from them, and happy with both.


----------



## petrochemist (Sep 10, 2017)

Most of my kit has been brought used. Despite hundreds of purchases I've hardly ever had any issues that weren't quickly resolved.
For the occasions I've had issues (all low cost transactions)  the total cost involved has been saved many times over by several of the single purchases.

The description, photographs & perhaps a personal inspection give a fairly good idea of the state of the gear. With camera bodies it's also often possible to find out the total number of shutter activations.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 10, 2017)

benhasajeep said:


> SquarePeg said:
> 
> 
> > TimmyD11 said:
> ...





petrochemist said:


> Most of my kit has been brought used. Despite hundreds of purchases I've hardly ever had any issues that weren't quickly resolved.
> For the occasions I've had issues (all low cost transactions)  the total cost involved has been saved many times over by several of the single purchases.
> 
> The description, photographs & perhaps a personal inspection give a fairly good idea of the state of the gear. With camera bodies it's also often possible to find out the total number of shutter activations.



As a camera salesman from way back, I know that it's almost impossible to convince a cautious or fearful buyer to go with used or refurbished equipment, no matter how many positive experiences or glowing reviews are given in support of used gear.


----------



## astroNikon (Sep 10, 2017)

My first 2 DSLRs were New, not used.   Only AFTER I got used to buying camera equipment used did I feel comfortable enough to buy a camera body used (D600 refurbished).

So it's all one's particular perspective on anything new or used.
Do people buy used furniture, clothes, computers ??  You can but I doubt everyone does.  You have to be comfortable with what you are buying used irregardless of what other people say and what other people are comfortable with.


----------



## davidharmier60 (Sep 10, 2017)

I have Sigma and Phoenix zooms. Used them on my EOS650. Plan to get a used 40D to continue to use them.
My problem is all financial. 


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk


----------



## benhasajeep (Sep 10, 2017)

TimmyD11 said:


> So I just purchased the Canon 6D and the Canon 16-35mm f4 L lens as my landscape lens. I just thought I'd let everybody know because you all gave input (and I appreciate it). I think I will be pretty happy.
> 
> Now if only the fires would stop in BC for my trip to Banff and Jasper next week. Well I don't want to be selfish, hopefully they stop for all the people that live there.
> 
> If they don't I hope the airlines cooperate with me about switching flights to a different destination. Don't think the Olympic National Park is on fire, and nothing west of it can be on fire because only the Pacific is west of there!



Congrats on the new camera.  May it serve you well.


----------



## TimmyD11 (Sep 10, 2017)

Thanks benhasajeep!


----------



## beagle100 (Sep 10, 2017)

SquarePeg said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Dragster3 said:
> ...



25 pages ... yes, it could be a record
*www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless*[/QUOTE]


----------



## Frank F. (Sep 16, 2017)

TimmyD11 said:


> So I just purchased the Canon 6D and the Canon 16-35mm f4 L lens as my landscape lens. I just thought I'd let everybody know because you all gave input (and I appreciate it). I think I will be pretty happy.
> 
> Now if only the fires would stop in BC for my trip to Banff and Jasper next week. Well I don't want to be selfish, hopefully they stop for all the people that live there.
> 
> If they don't I hope the airlines cooperate with me about switching flights to a different destination. Don't think the Olympic National Park is on fire, and nothing west of it can be on fire because only the Pacific is west of there!




Very good choice. You may close your three EF lens thread now.


----------

