cowboyseth

I plan to try to get a dslr camera... I want to use it for taking events indoors and out... Maybe to catch videos of the dogs running... and low light portrait night photography and landscape photograpy...

I have considered the 70d from canon... was wondering also about the lenses... also rebates are available also

Others I have looked at Nikon 5300, 7100, 610 and possibly 750 there maybe a rebate for the 7100

Other canons could be the 7d mark 2. I didnt care for the 6d really.... Maybe SL1? (heard it was pretty good in low light)

How is the video quality on the nikons?

Any lenses that would be good for aps-c low light or should i dive into full frame... Do people like the articulating screen on the 70d from canon? ... Might be good to get the people to relax in the subject when they are looking at you....

I tend to stay away from the panasonic gh4 or maybe the sony 99. The gh4 didnt seem to have that good of still capability

my budget is 2000 or 2500...

Mike D. Loc: Crowley County, CO.

I believe that you could get a very nice full frame body that would fit your budget but you would need some glass. Otherwise you would have a very expensive paper weight. Keep in mind too that just about everthing for a FF camera will cost you more.

Your dilemma is a familiar one but I had a much lower budget so I opted for a refurbished D7100. It is very close to the 70D but reports indicate that the image quality is better on the 7100. Some reviews have said that it's the next best thing to full frame without spending the money but at the end of the day, only you can determine what the best fit will be, Happy hunting!

DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX

Welcome to UHH. I would base my decision on my financial capability. I tried low balling my entry and it cost me more in the long run but it also allowed me to pass some very good equipment along to my grandson. HOGs care about what they recommend and they don't want to suggest more expensive equipment to newbies. The fact is, most DSLR equipment today, regardless of who makes it, is excellent and of good quality. If you can easily afford it get an FX like the D810 and the trinity of lenses. If you cannot afford it, you won't go wrong with a DX like the D7100 or even the D5300. I don't like an articulating screen, however, many people do, especially those that like to shoot video. I don't. The video quality with Nikons are good from what I have seen. I have also heard that Panasonic does the very best video. Good luck.

Kabe

I'm pretty much in the same boat currently. Initially I was considering entry level (SL1, d3300). But then as did more and more research, I thought the d5300 would be a better fit since it's a bit faster with more focus points. I then read a thread here on buying refurb and that got be thinking a refurb d7100 since a is still in my budget. It's faster and offers more flexibility. It's also a little bigger which actually might be an advantage in handling and bigger lenses. Of course if I'm considering a refurb d7100 then I should (and I am) considering a 70D. As many have stated here, you can't really go wrong there but that's assuming I actually break out of the analysis paralysis and pull the trigger.

watchcow Loc: Moore, Oklahoma

For low light the Expeed4 equipped Nikon bodies are excellent performers. i chose a D5300, but after having had it for a few months, i really think i could have done just as well with the D3300, similar sensor, same chipset, notably lower cost. The age of the body is relatively important because improvements in resolution and noise control tend to happen with each new generation. In this regard, i would rather have a D3300 than a D7000. A D7100 starts to bring enough other toys to the table to make it attractive though. If video is your main drive, then a mirrorless camera or one of the Canon DSLRs might be a better choice. If low light still images are your driving force, then Nikon currently has the edge on any of their newer bodies. In six months it will likely flipflop again. For now i would probably favor a less expensive body, and a general purpose lens like the 18-140 VR. that money spent, i would then take some time and LOTS of pictures to see how you like it, how you can adapt to it, and find out what you really lack that would make your pursuit more fulfilling or more successful. Sure, you can spend thousands on a top of the line full frame body and more on lenses. $15,000 later you might not be any closer to your goal and have a lot of high end gear depreciated to half its value.

While i do tend to say reach for what you can, because in many cases bigger and newer is better, but this is a complex pursuit and a single low-end to midrange camera and a good starter lens will let you explore before you spend a lot of money on exactly the wrong things. If you shoot indoor events, a good flash is mighty handy. If your choice is a good prosumer lens plus a flash vs a high end f2.8 zoom and no flash, then the choice of the high end has gained you very little. F2.8 at 6400iso vs f4 at 400 with the aid of a flash can be the difference between a marketable image and a deleted image.

Start well, but start small, then expand your tool set as you expand your knowledge.

jim quist Loc: Missouri

I use Canon, lenses for full frame cost the same as for smaller sensors. I shoot sports in low light. What I can suggest is that you get a lens with at least a 2.8, to a 1.something if you can afford it.
The 1Dmk3 ($1200 used) is not very good in low light, but the 1d mk4 ($3000 range used) is great. I only shoot with 1D bodies because I need the body for really bad weather. So I won't talk about other body's. The 70-200 2.8 is a great lens, its a little soft with either of the extenders.

Mike D. Loc: Crowley County, CO.

How is THAT for sage advice... Touche' Watchcow.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

Funny, I have been reading that very comment for about 6 years now. ;-)

amehta Loc: Boston

Starting with your budget, and putting half towards the camera, that makes some of the top candidates
* Nikon D7100
* Canon 70D
* Sony A77 II
* Olympus OM-D E-M1

Each of these has a current "lower-tiered" sibling (D5300, T5i, A58/A65, E-M5/E-M10), as well as an older version (D7000, 60D, A77, ?) which would all be cheaper. With your budget, though, I would stick with a camera from the original list over these "lower" or "older" options.

With your budget, I think it makes sense to skip the full frame cameras. A current one would take your entire budget, and an older one would not have very good video except for the Canon 5D Mark II.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Welcome to our forum.

Nikon or Canon - flip a coin concerning quality and features. Rebates are a good idea, if you have the patience, and you don't just settle because an item has a rebate.

Look at reviews and comparisons and think about the future. You're smart to be working with a decent budget. Good lenses are important, but you have to think if a less expensive lens will get you the results you need. This is where comparative reviews come in handy. Google "dxo lens comparisons." You can enter the lenses you want to compare and even select a camera body. Put more thought into the lense than the camera. Cameras come and go, but lenses are forever.

Also consider refurbished items.

spdmn54 Loc: Avon Lake, Ohio

I got back into photography 2 years ago after a 30 year hiatus, raising kids and all, I bought the Nikon d3200 at the time and I am glad I did. Excellent starter camera for the money, easy to use, has some good auto modes until you get comfortable with the manual set ups. I am being ready to move up, just not sure which one, will stick with Nikon though as I have invested in some lenses. That's the beauty of Nikon, their lenses fit a broad range of their products, so once you buy the glass you have it forever instead of paperweights. That said, I stick withthe d3300. :thumbup:

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

APS-C sensors are improving rapidly. The cost for lenses specific to APS-C will always be lower than full frame equivalents. Unless you can afford a commitment to full frame, I would suggest focusing on APS-C. If you do, you are more likely to be able to afford newer lenses when they come out and upgrade bodies when the sensor tech advances.

I agree with the idea of focusing on lenses in making your choice of a body with one caveat. Companies like Sigma and Tamron have been really kicking up their game the last few years. You will be able to kit yourself out quite nicely, if you choose a Canon or Nikon (Canikon is a contraction for these two you may see used occasionally.)

jgitomer Loc: Skippack Pennsylvania

Others have suggested which bodies you should consider, but no one has really talked about lenses.

My own experience is with Nikon and what I say may not apply to any other make of equipment.

If you go with Nikon have a close look at buying used or refurbished lenses from a reputable dealer (KEH, B&H and Adorama come to mind).

Doing so will allow you to buy FX instead of DX lenses (something you will be thankful for if you ever decide to go to a full frame camera) and you will be able to get more bang for your buck.

Jerry

RKL349 Loc: Connecticut

Ditto! :thumbup:

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

Since announcement of the mk2, the 7d has become the best bargian in the Industry. A refurb 7d can be had at about $800. Add a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 putss the package at about $2,000. The 7d is still a great camera.