Which Camera Should I Buy?
Recently I’ve been following a number of camera blogs including Scott Bourne’s photofocus. Yesterday he had a post entitled What Camera Should I Buy? which is pretty well written. However, I found his list of recommendations to be a bit strange. I would have posted my take as a comment on his blog, but since comments are closed over there I guess I will give them here.
How can the Canon EOS Rebel T3i and the Nikon D7000 both be considered “budget DSLRs” when the latter costs twice as much as the Canon? Why is the Nikon 3100 considered a “Super Budget DSLR” when it is about the same price as the Canon EOS Rebel T3i? Finally, why would anyone want the Nikon D300s anymore (or for that matter a Nikon D3S which costs five times more) when the D7000 is cheaper and better (than the D300s and about the same as the D3S except in weight and cost)?
August 22nd, 2011 at 1:39 am
My 2 cents on this matter.
Well the Nikon D3100 is considered to be in the same range as the Canon 1000D while the xxxD (Txx in US) are considered a notch above, but as the cameras age and go down in price the barriers(thin as they are) get muddy, and there is probably a new canon on this range coming sooninsh(if they keep their usual schedule )
As for the D7000 and D300S the later is faster has a better focusing system, uses CF and SD cards, and some say it’s better built ( I can’t comment on this since I never handled a D7000). These are characteristics that put it a notch above the D7000 for some people, is also produces less noise.
The D3S is in a completely different dimension, the D7000 doesn’t compare in any regard. It may have higher pixel count but you can do things with this beast that you can’t with any other camera, the image quality is the best you’ll see around, and the usable iso range is insane. Yes it’s expensive and heavy but you do get bang for your buck.
August 22nd, 2011 at 8:40 am
Sure the D300s is better on a couple of issues but…
the D7000 has essentially the same sensor (more MP but I don’t care about that),
better ISO range,
1080p capable (and 30 fps instead of 24 fps capable at 720p) for video,
better RGB sensor,
10% longer battery life,
the Nikon D7000 is 140 grams lighter than the D300s (and a bit smaller), and
the D7000 has a lot more WB options.
I have no need for a CF card slot; nor have I seen any evidence that the D300s produces less noise–just the opposite in fact. 6 vs 7 shots ps is also not important to me (or most people). I can’t imagine many people coming to the conclusion that the D300s is the better camera at this point even if the prices were the same (which they aren’t).
As for the D3s, I’ve seen photo comparisons and they really aren’t that different than the D7000. Given the weight and size of the thing, the D3s really isn’t worth the money (with the D7000 now out there) unless you are only using it in a studio (i.e. you don’t have to carry it around) or you are a professional sports photographer and need 9 frames per second.
August 29th, 2011 at 6:15 am
I totally agree with your assessment as the D300 and D7000 go. If I had to choose between them I would probably go for the D7000 as well. I don’t quite get Nikon’s strategy here.
As for the D3s, thing is you can shoot that at 128000 ISO and have amazing photos with low noise, and it can focus in much lower light, also “normal” cameras focus until a maximum aperture of 5.6 this can do it until 8), plus other advantages that you can’t get that from any other camera. It is better in every aspect, but of course the price and weight make it a hard purchase for the vast majority of people. I know I would never buy it 😛