Canon V Nikon

[bill_petersen]

<p>I am trying to decide between the Nikon D3300; The Canon Rebel T5 and the Canon SX 60 HS. I understand this is not Apples to Apples". However, I need to stay in this price range and thought someone might offer some advice. Primarily the camera will be used for taking photos of products to be uploaded to Ebay and Amazon but I will also use it for general photography as well. I will also occasionally need macro . I understand that the dslr's will need a separate lens for this. Thanks for responding.....</p>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>I will not step into the bubbling tar pit of brand loyalty, but would just mention that for product photography shots on websites a basic DSLR such as the D3300 with its kit lens, though not macro, will get very close, and it has so much pixel density that it is easy to crop and be left with plenty of resolution.</p>

[bill_petersen]

<p>Thanks Matthew. Is there a lot of difference between the D3200 and the D3300? There are some pretty good deals out there on the 3200 (multiple lenses and such)</p>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>The D3300 has no anti-aliasing filter, resulting in somewhat sharper images, or so it's said. It also has a bit higher available ISO and a few other enhancements, and the kit lens is a little more convenient, now retracting, with a non-rotating front element. I think it also now has a panorama option. In most respects it's about the same. I have a D3200 and my guess would be that it's quite sufficient for the intended use, but others may have further ideas.</p>

[CvhKaar]

<p>Not what you are askeing for, i know..<br>

Altough i do have a fairly extensive set of Nikon dslr equipment, lense, macro extensions, even bellows, i still do find for photo's for uploading to the internet, including macro,it mostly far more convenient to use a good quality point & shoot in my case a Fujifilm x10, but others are also very usefull..), but that is just me...</p>

[bill_petersen]

<p>The Fujifilm X10 is about 100 dollars more than the NikonD3300 or the Canon Rebel T5. I am not sure I see your reasoning here. Is the Fujifilm that easier to use justifying the higher price?</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>Primarily the camera will be used for taking photos of products to be uploaded to Ebay and Amazon</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A smartphone won't be sufficient?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>... general photography ... occasionally need macro ...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As was already said, even without a dedicated macro lens, close-up photography is often possible with a DSLR (or mirrorless) kit lens, or almost any P&S compact camera - especially when the images are only used on the web. And whether or not a DSLR is needed for general photography depends on how much you are willing to carry and your personal preferences as to image quality.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>trying to decide between the Nikon D3300 and the Canon Rebel T5</p>

</blockquote>

<p>mostly a matter of handling preference - I suggest you go to a store and handle both.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Primarily the camera will be used for taking photos of products to be uploaded to Ebay and Amazon but I will also use it for general photography as well.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Product images for eBay and Amazon is not a very demanding application. You certainly don't need a DSLR for that purpose, but if you would like to buy a DSLR for that anyway, those consumer-grade Canon and Nikon can all get the job done. Which brand to get highly depends on:</p>

<ol>

<li>Personal preference, as Dieter pointed out. Visit a store and see which one feels better in your hands.</li>

<li>Whether you have close friends that use either brand. If you can borrow or share some lenses and accessories, it can be a huge advantage. Of course, your friends may want to borrow your equipment too.</li>

</ol>

[Mike D]

<p>For the fun of it, I just shot a photo of a memory stick with my last-generation iPhone. It's amazing how suited the images are for eBay and Amazon. My understanding is that the latest iPhone and best Samsung smart phones are even better. I know my comment is a little off-topic but I would still get a DSLR, I just wouldn't let shooting for eBay and Amazon be part of the decision making process. </p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<blockquote>

<p>Primarily the camera will be used for taking photos of products to be uploaded to Ebay and Amazon but I will also use it for general photography as well.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Both will work great, as will mirrorless.<br /><br>

<br>

Buy what fits in your hand best. Seriously.</p>

[bill_petersen]

<p>I guess I'll go with the DSLR. I like the fact that I can add lenses and do more creative things other than ebay work....besides...It's probably more important to worry about how to properly light and display the product since Ebay really only worries about the size of the photo (768x1024). Now...to just figure out which Entry Level in the 350 to 425 price range. The Rebel T5; The Nikon D3200 and the D3300 all fall in that parameter. The Nikon body feels a little "cheap" when I looked at it...I haven't seen the T5 yet. The search is on !!! Thanks for your input guys...I really appreciate it.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>DSLRs in that price range are going to feel cheap due to the many plastic parts. I wouldn't worry about that. (If you want something that feel heavier with a better construction but stays in that price range, your options will be some used, fairly out of date old DSLR that is now out of favor, but the old electronics will lead to compromises in results.)</p>

<p>Currently, Nikon has a Black Friday D3200 kit deal that comes with two starter lenses at below $400: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1195293-REG/nikon_13493_d3200_dslr_camera_with.html<br>

That should be a good starting point. Most likely Canon has similar deals.</p>

<p> </p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Lighting and background/setting are much more important in making a product look good than the camera used. Especially for web use.<br>

Therefore I'd be looking for a camera that can easily synchronise with simple, manual off-camera flash, and Canon tend to make that slightly more problematic than do Nikon on their most recent cameras. Personally I wouldn't touch the Canon SX60 bridge camera for that reason. Also the "macro" facility on bridge and P&S type cameras is usually only available at shorter zoom settings. This means a ridiculously close working distance with small objects, together with noticeable barrel distortion that gives a very "amateur" look to the pictures. However, if you intend only to photograph fairly sizeable objects (1ft across or more) that's not so much of an issue.</p>

<p>Rather than throw money at the problem Bill, I'd advise you spend some time educating yourself about lighting, colour contrast/compatibility, perspective, and all the rest that makes a picture of an object look desirable. The camera is just a fairly unimportant tool in the chain.</p>

[studio460]

<p>I have both a Nikon D3200 and a D3300. The D3200 has a quietest shutter of any camera I own. The D3300 has a newer sensor that has a slightly improved DxO rating for low-light performance. The D3300 is also slightly lighter thanks to its monocoque (single-piece) carbon-fiber body, and shoots 1FPS faster than the D3200 at 5FPS. The FPS and slight improvement in low-noise imaging gives the edge to the D3300. Otherwise, the bodies are very similar in performance.</p>

<p>The cameras both performed above expectations, and image quality is about the best you can get in an APS-C body since both sensors are rather recent. Note that the D3300, though light, is strong, thanks to its carbon-fiber body, and after carrying heavy, full-sized FX bodies for awhile, you come to really appreciate the "cheap-feeling," lightweight D3000-series bodies.</p>

<p>I bought refurbished versions of both cameras (at different times), and each looked brand new when I got it. I've dropped them, abused them, and shot with them in the pouring rain, and both performed flawlessly. Search for "Nikon D3200 refurbished" or "Nikon D3300 refurbished" to get the best deals (Cameta Camera tends to blow these out every once in a while).</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Therefore I'd be looking for a camera that can easily synchronise with simple, manual off-camera flash,</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

I've set up a professional eBay photography setup. There's no reason to use flash. We used LED continuous lighting. Much easier as you can see before you snap and there's no sync issues.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The D3200 has a quietest shutter of any camera I own. The D3300 has a newer sensor that has a slightly improved DxO rating for low-light performance. The D3300 is also slightly lighter thanks to its monocoque (single-piece) carbon-fiber body, and shoots 1FPS faster than the D3200 at 5FPS. The FPS and slight improvement in low-noise imaging gives the edge to the D3300. Otherwise, the bodies are very similar in performance.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

There is no reason any of this matters for eBay photos.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Jeff said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>There is no reason any of this matters for eBay photos.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>He wants to shoot other things as well. This information is in direct reply to his query, <em>"Is there a lot of difference between the D3200 and the D3300?"</em></p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<blockquote>

<p>"There's no reason to use flash. We used LED continuous lighting. Much easier as you can see before you snap and there's no sync issues."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The OP has a tight budget by the sound of it Jeff, and flash offers the best "bang for buck" in terms of lighting. OTOH LED lighting is terrible value for money as the technology stands at the moment. LED panels offer no option to fit modifiers, and you're stuck with a neither hard-nor-soft, nyah type of light with a pretty pathetic Lumen figure. This makes having a stable camera platform an absolute necessity too. If anything, photo CFL lamps are probably the best option in continuous sources, as long as absolute colour accuracy isn't essential. And when LED lighting does come of age you'll most likely be able to simply screw the LED "bulbs" into the old CFL luminaires.</p>

[bill_petersen]

<p>Guys...we kind of got off the subject here. We went from comparing the 3200 to the 3300 to a discussion of lighting. I realize that lighting will be (and is ) important when photographing products to be shown for sale. I just need your advice on the best entry level DSLR camera for the money in my 350 to 425 dollar price range for shooting the product photos and for adding lenses in the future for other types of shoots. My impression is that after reading all of the great input you have provided, that the general consensus is the Nikon D3300 rather than the Canon T5 or the D3200. By the way, I hope that I can some day achieve the level of expertise that I see in you folks. You are awesome!</p>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>Though I have a D3200, like it and expect to continue with that for some time yet, I don't see any good reason not to get a 3300 if you can afford it. I don't think there's anything on the later model that has been changed to its disadvantage.</p>

[bill_petersen]

<p>Thanks Matthew...I searched and actually found that Nikon offers the best deal. The D3300 body; an 18-55mm VR11 lens; A 55-200mm VR11 Lens; a wireless adaptor and a camera bag for 499.00 with free shipping. I guess that this is OK (I'll still have to buy a memory card)</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>Nikon offers the best deal. The D3300 body; an 18-55mm VR11 lens; A 55-200mm VR11 Lens; a wireless adaptor and a camera bag for 499.00</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Buy the same kit from amazon or adorama and you get the SD card for free - and save another $3.</p>

[bill_petersen]

<p>I'll check it out Dieter.....Thanks for letting me know!!!</p>

[ShunCheung]

The "Black Friday" D3200 and D3300 packages come with the same 18-55 and 55-200 consumer lenses. $399 for the

D3200 and $499 for the D3200. I would probably save that $100.

 

Product images for eBay are typically of poor quality. The OP is not shooting for Sothbey auctions. I wouldn't spend a lot

of time worrying about lighting.

[bill_petersen]

<p>Thanks Sam....But what about the world beyond Ebay product photos...wouldn't the D3300 be worth the extra 100 bucks to get the bigger image sensor at 24.6? Or....would the images taken by either camera be the same in quality? As stated previously, I am not going to just limit myself to ebay...I want to use the camera for all of my general photo needs like landscape; portraits.. etc etc etc....</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>The difference in image quality between the 3200 and 3300 in real world photos is, I'll bet just about any amount of money, basically nil.</p>

<p>That being said... I think if you can afford to get the most current technology in any electronics purchase, it will last you longer before you want to replace it.</p>