Which DSLR/Mirrorless Should I get?

Hi guys, I recently sold my Canon point-n-shoots and want to upgrade to a DSLR or a mirrorless. My budget is around $350. I'm not trying to be a professional overnight, I just want something that will consistently take good photos, but isn't too antiquated that I will constantly feel as though I bought the wrong one. I've been eyeing the Canon T3, which I can find everywhere for $299, but it is a pretty old design. I've found a few Canon T2is on eBay, would it be worth the gamble going with a used T2i over a new-in-box T3? Conversly, I've found some refurbed Panasonic LUMIX DMC-G5Ks which seems to be a better deal than either of the two above, but I do worry about going with a mirrorless unit as I don't know much about them. Are the gimmickly? Will they endure the test of time?

So, what do you guys think? I know we have quite a few photography buffs on here, and I really do feel more comfortable asking the GRM community. Any imput would be greatly appreciated.

I'm slutty for Pentax because of the in-body image stabilization instead of in-lens with Canon and Nikon. They also sell awesome fixed focal length lenses. And there's a lot of old glass out there that's quite good. Biggest drawback is how 3rd party lenses always target the big two players and Pentax sometimes doesn't get a lot of love. You can get a refurb, like new grade Pentax K-r with an 18-55 kit lens (and all indications are that Pentax kit lenses are nicer, slightly, than what you get from Canon or Nikon) for $350 from KEH.

There's a ton of options out there and honestly I don't think there's only one good route here. The biggest thing is trying lenses, knowing when to use what, and getting to know your gear.

I had pentax but moved to canon... the built in IS on pentax was awesome as was TONS of legacy glass... but they went to much smaller body shapes when I went to start updating my kit so I moved over the Canon... at the time canon had the best video modes which I still use for Church announcements... I also get the benefit that I have a few pro photographer friends that all shoot canon so I can barrow high end glass from time to time which can be nice as I can't afford multiple $2500 lenses lol.

as much as I love my SLR i LOVE the idea of the mirrorless 4/3s cameras, as it stands I don't bring my SLR with me very often these days... if I have it with me it'll either get to much use and I annoy my wife and kids running around or I don't use it and it's just dead weight so as it stands I end up using my phone camera (which is far better then my first digial camera I had 10 years ago lol)... but I can see either a high end P&S or mirrorless actually getting toted along more often... then again for that I'd prob be happy with something like a canon g11 or some other higher end P&S that is still pocketable

as mentioned above KEH is a great place to start... his return policy is pretty awesome and his prices are fair along with tons of options/stock.... just double check what you are getting as a single letter or number means it's not what you thought it was ...

My first DSLR was a Nikon D40 that I bought used for about $300 with the kit 18-55mm lens. From what I've seen they still go for about the same amount of money and they still take pretty good shots, even if it is a generation or three old technology and "only" a 6.1mp sensor. It eventually evolved in to the D3000/3100/3200 series, and for a starter DSLR they're nice bodies. Most of the gains since the late 2000's have come at high-iso picture quality, system speed (burst mode frame rates, etc), increasingly better autofocus, and video capabilities. The basic DSLR from Canon and Nikon are going to effectively be interchangeable lens, big sensor P&S cameras thanks to their many auto features and will certainly make getting a decent picture easier than learning photography beyond the basics.

I switched to Pentax for their built in weather resistance, in-body shake reduction, and the ability to easily use legacy lenses. Pentax's don't make the greatest jpegs straight out of the camera, if you're never going to mess with raw files Canon or Nikon will probably give you better results immediately, but if developed from a raw file the results are some of the best for aps-c cameras. The older K10, K20, etc bodies are good, but the K30 was a giant leap forward in performance and IQ and you can find the body for $300-350 now I think.

I honestly think mirrorless cameras are the future especially as electronic viewfinders get better, but I don't feel the same about the Micro 4/3'rds format as it's just too small imo. The Fuji XT1 and Sony A7 show you can get an aps-c and almost get a full frame sensor in the same size body, so why go with a smaller sensor? There might be an argument for smaller lens sizes, but the Fuji X-series lenses aren't exactly huge. I hear great things about the Sony NEX cameras, but I think they've been discontinued or changed lens mounts or something... don't know, I don't like shooting without an optical viewfinder.

CN: Buy a Canon Rebel or a Nikon D40 or a 3200 if you want lightweight and access to a larger family of lenses ($$$) but trade off a plasticky cheaper build quality. Buy a Pentax if you want a rock solid camera that has fewer 3rd party (i.e. cheap) options but PLENTY of legacy glass, especially if you don't mind manual focus, that can be had for pennies as well as the best primes ($$$) in the business.

And remember, the body is much less important than the lens. The lens creates the picture, the body just captures it. You're better off buying better glass and using it on an older body than buying the newest nicest body with the cheapest lens you can get.

skierd wrote: And remember, the body is much less important than the lens. The lens creates the picture, the body just captures it. You're better off buying better glass and using it on an older body than buying the newest nicest body with the cheapest lens you can get.

right on about the pentax JPG stuff being meh... I shot everything raw on my k10d and did minor post work it always came out nicer than the out of camera jpg even if only using standard settings even in picasa... on my canon I shoot raw+jpg but the out of camera jpg is so nice I usually don't bother doing anything with the photos

as for the lens thing... absolutely... quality and fast glass will make even an older camera body work so much better... I was hanging out with a friend yesterday who has an older rebel XT (8mp, max ISO1600)... he has a kit lens and a 75-300... in chatting I found that he almost only ever uses manual focus with it because its so slow to AF... I let him play with my 17-50 f/2.8 lens and he was amazed at how much quicker his camera would focus... i'm sure had he spent more time with it his 2 extra full stops would have blown him away...

the one thing that newer cameras can do though is the sensitivity (ISO) on my k10d 800 was the top end of what I wanted to even consider shooting... 1600 was max but it had massive noise and banding... on my 60d (18mp sensor canon uses on a bunch of cameras from the 7d on down to the rebel line) I can shoot with 3200 and still have a usable shot which is again an extra 2 stops of light... on the 5d mkII I shoot sometimes I have yet another stop on ISO if not 2... and the newer full frames are even better... so both can make a difference... but the lens will stay around indefinitely if you pick the right glass... if you think you'll upgrade to full frame down the road consider that when buying glass...

Thanks for the help you guys, I see I have a lot to learn! I didn't find too much on the bay of e in the way of Pentaxs in my price range, but I did find a pretty good deal (I hope) on a Canon T2i. Here's the one I bought: http://www.ebay.com/itm/201123141835?ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1497.l2649

What do you guys think? Did I get a good deal?

Now to learn how to use this thing.

The T2i seems to review well. The price seems fine to me. Good luck!

I picked up a Nikon J1 a while back, and my DSLR has gathered dust ever since. The quality is maybe 80% of my D5000, but the size and convenience mean that I can easily take it everywhere and actually use it! I went with the Nikon because it was user friendly, good in low light and was fast. Other cameras had bigger sensors and some nice features, but I got a screaming deal on the Nikon. I wish Nikon or Tamron or someone would introduce more lenses for it, like a big telephoto, but I am happy for now. My advice is to go small if you are a casual/family/hobby photographer.

DP review has been the site that I like to read for cameras: DP Review

not a bad price for a t2i. and even tho its older then the t3, i think the specs are still better since the t3 was built as a cheap way to get people into the canon ecosystem.

maybe i should sell my t2i

Sony is the only company doing a full frame mirrorless right now, right?

I've been debating between replacing my stolen D50 with a D7000 or a Nikon One.

In reply to PHeller:

Yeah. And there's adapters to let you do things like this; http://www.frankdoorhof.com/site/2013/11/sony-a7r-with-some-m42-glass/

I'd still go A77 instead of A7 just to get a real viewfinder but that's me.

The A77 used a translucent mirror but its not mirrorless.

The only way I'd go for a mirrorless was if it was cheaper than a similarly capable DSLR. It seems that the cheaper mirrorless cameras from Samsung and Sony are not always better than something like a used D7000 or D7100.

bump?

D7000 for $575 body only or D7100 for $1100 with 18-100mm VR?

Do you need/want the lens?

I need a short lens. Currently my kit includes only a 50-150 f2.8 and 50mm f/1.8 (which I'm thinking of selling).

I may go a different route.

D3300 body kit with memory card, extra battery, etc, and a 35mm f/1.8

This kit will be $400 cheaper than the D7100, but utilize the newest technology available from Nikon. Since I don't care for the 50mm anyway, I won't miss the lack of autofocus on that lens.

You can find the 18-55 kit lens pretty cheap, and it's a surprisingly good lens for the money. I do have the 35mm even though I don't use it that often. It is a very, very nice lens.

Any thoughts on the D3300 vs the D7100 for someone who has lived perfectly happy for 8 years with a D50?

I really only need/want better ISO and HD video.

this came though my inbox the other day and it made me think of this... talking about equivalence between different sized sensors/lens... the 1.5x or 1.6x factor for getting focal length also goes to f-stop... spending some time with a full frame camera with a 50mm f/1.4 over the last few months I've noticed this myself but found the article with solid numbers very interesting

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=generic

for a wider lens... as mentioned the 18-55 kit lenses tend to be pretty stinking good especially when stopped down and being that most people use the wide end for outdoor scenic type stuff stopping it down isn't an issue... and you should be able to get a VR version for about what you'd sell the 50mm for... but I do have to say I'm quite fond of my tamron 17-50 2.8 (non VC is optically better than the VC version and under $300 on KEH).

as for camera body choice... take a look over at www.kenwrockwell.com go in knowing that he says a lot of things tongue-in-cheek but he's got a lot of good info avl... he does have both of those cameras at the top of his recommended cameras list, the d3300 as his "best camera for most things" and the 7100 on his "best serious cameras" list

this blurb from his page on the d3300 really does sum it up though

kenrockwell.com said: You can pay more for fancier cameras, but no camera takes better pictures than a D3300. The reason guys like me pay more for fancier cameras isn't for better pictures; it's for more controls and options that let us few who actually know how to use all these controls to get to them faster. The D3300 has the same adjustments, just that you'll more often have to use a menu to set them instead of a knob or button. If you shoot all day every day as I do, it's worth it, otherwise, there's no reason to pay more since most people have no idea what these other settings do.

In reply to donalson:

Thanks man,

Yea I tend to go with what Rockwell usually suggests. He is however, not really a video guy and as these cameras become more and more capable as video capture devices, I think he should start reviewing some of the ergonomics features of the cameras for video.

For example, I really see the benefit to a swivel screen. I see an even bigger benefit to being able to wireless display the live view on a mobile device. So far I haven't really read many reviews of how well that system works. I rarely take selfies and have no problems "guessing" where the camera is pointed if I'm shooting from a low or high angle, but as far as the remote monitor is concerned there have been many times when I want to be 50' away from the camera and know I'm in frame.

Are there less expensive alternatives for an add-on remote monitor?

I sold my APS-C Canon setup a few years ago for a OM-D E-M5 and haven't looked back. Micro 4/3 is wonderful. I can carry my setup (20mm, 45mm, 7.5mm fisheye, 12-40mm and a 90mm, SB-20 flash, wireless triggers, a gorillapod) in a crumpler fanny pack. Image quality is phenomenal. Great image stabilization in-body, great low light performance, nice ergonomics, etc. Autofocus is faster most of the time, but since it's contrast-detection it can have trouble in super low light. Obviously you get a wider depth of field with M43, but you work around it.

The best camera is the one you have with you, and I'm a lot more likely to carry this gear than the Canon stuff that weighed 3x more. And it's a nice setup to start with, because with an electronic viewfinder you can magnify part of the image and focus on it. That means manual focus with cheap old film lenses is a piece of cake compared to trying to do the same through the viewfinder on an SLR.

What's the best mirrorless camera for $500 if you want to use old Nikon lenses? $500 should include the cost of an adapter.

It seems that some mirrorless models have better adapters than other. I've read of adapters that allow you to use the lens as normal, and other adapters where everything is manual.

In reply to PHeller:

It seems doubtful that many mirrorless camera bodies have an AF screw drive. Seems very doubtful that there are adapters to carry that screw drive from the mount on the body to the mount on the lens. I think you'd be looking at a manual focus only rig at best. As far as the aperture, there might be some adapters that make that all work, but honesty I think you're looking at all-manual most of the time. See what Kipon can offer, I don't know of other adapter brands that might do what you're hoping to find.

I've only got one screw drive lens anymore, a 50mm 1.8 that I rarely use. Would sell to fund an adapter that allowed my 50-150 to work as normal. My 50-150 Sigma 2.8 is HSM. That was an $800 lens that I prefer not to sell at a huge loss.

With there was a Ken Rockwell for mirrorless cameras. Or at least if Ken had a page for all mirrorless reviews.

In reply to PHeller:

Yeah. I think you're going to need a Nikon fan like Ken to really get a good idea of what's out there in the way that you're asking about. Baring that, the DPReview.com forums may be useful.