Entry level DSLR?

Michael Thames

Michael Thames

Carbonite Member
My friend is interested in getting into DSLR video. He is considering a Canon T3i his budget is around $600. I told him I'd ask around to see if this was a good in entry level DSLR. I was thinking of the Panasonic LX100 but it's $300 more. Anything you guys can suggest?
 
If he's starting out, I wouldn't get a m43s compact from Panasonic. A Canon or Nikon DSLR will produce a more pleasing image with the larger sensor and better lowlight performance and colour, they're much better for learning the basics of 35mm filming.

In the entry level point, Canon is way behind the entire industry.

I would buy a Nikon D3300 with the 18-55mm VR lens for wide shots and a 50mm F/1.8 D for everything else and lowlight. This is a very affordable package and offers everything you need to produce high quality video in all situations. If the budget allows, the D5300 has the advantage of an articulating screen which is super useful for video. Both of them are great unlike the t3i which has a softer image, much more aliasing and moire, and about a full stop worse lowlight performance. I also prefer Nikon colours.

Read this up
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...ons-Video-DSLRs-the-entire-line-up-comparison
 
The Nikon 5300 (along with the pricier 7100) as about the best DSLR footage as of now.

A used 5300 or 7100 may be an option.

A used D7000 has a really nice look, but more sensor skew (Jello)and (if I recall) no 60p at any frame size.

A used T2i is the cheapest way in the door and can look very nice. It's that first-gen Canon look, but in good hands, they've done remarkable work. With a $20 Nikon adapter, you can use a few decades worth of Nikkors and aftermarket glass, too.
 
Dont forget D5200. Its same as D7100 but whit tilt screen and u get 64Mbps hack for it. And as used sub 400$. In Europe 360€ new. Its best APS-c camera in DXOmark.
 
As Michael says yes the D5300 and D7100 are the best. If he has the budget. And the D3300 is also great and produces nearly the same image, so it's a great option for video. The D5300 adds the useful ariculating screen and the d7100 adds tons of features and strength. The D7000 is not something I'd recommend for video, it has horrible aliasing and worse lowlight, just like Canon DSLRs. I call that the first Nikon generation video. The second generation is vastly improved and these cameras are: D5200, D5300, D3300, D7100, D750, D810. Any Nikon outside of these is not very good for video in my experience. I also wouldn't recommend the D5200, the D3300 and D5300 have an improved image that makes them worth the extra, it has tons of fixed pattern noise in the shadows and the image is just not as good (still great image for its time and vs the Canons though)
 
Thanks to all for the great info. I'm going to forward this link so he can read all the comments and make up his mind.

BTW, I've got a Nikkon D3100, I've been wanting to sell, are those any good for video? I never considered it for video when I bought it. Now I have the 5D3 and C100, I just gave it to my wife but she only uses her iPhone.
 
I'll respond with a **minor** defense of the 7000 - I pulled it out for a multi cam BTS of a celebrity fashion photo shoot. I had three cameras going for video and was taking stills with the 7000, but started playing with a 200mm 2.8 on it just for fun. The footage really did impress me compared to the Canons I was using at the time. Jello was a little bad, but I had no aliasing trouble and the look was really pleasing.

Something about Nikon is a subtle warmth to mids and skin, but a coolness to the shadows which can give a sort of 3D depth if you work with it, and that seemed to start with the 7000.

Today, I wouldn't advise hunting for a 7000 for video (and like the D90, the 7000 suffered from AF getting knocked out of whack if it took a good bump). But if you have one lying around or find a steal on one with a tight budget, it can be a very pretty camera.
 
D3100 is not particularly bad you can still produce 35mm-like images with it with some effort, but it's not ideal for video as it has no manual control over video exposure, and it has lots of aliasing and moire and quite noisy, that's all just when compared to the D3300.

And Michael: The D7000 can produce impressive images, I used to have a D5100 with the same sensor and really had a soft spot for that image, there's something about it quite hard to explain, but when these cameras are compared to the newer generation, they eliminated aliasin and moire, added a stop or two of lowlight performance and a bit more Dynamic range. For example in situations not utilizing extreme high ISOs and when shooting close-ups as opposed to wide detail (200mm 2.8) the D7100/3100/5100 can look very similar to the newer generation. My recommendation is get a D3300 or a D5300 if budget allows and don't forget that 50mm 1.8D.
 
Ebrahim Saadawi said:
D3100 is not particularly bad you can still produce 35mm-like images with it with some effort, but it's not ideal for video as it has no manual control over video exposure, and it has lots of aliasing and moire and quite noisy, that's all just when compared to the D3300.

And Michael: The D7000 can produce impressive images, I used to have a D5100 with the same sensor and really had a soft spot for that image, there's something about it quite hard to explain, but when these cameras are compared to the newer generation, they eliminated aliasin and moire, added a stop or two of lowlight performance and a bit more Dynamic range. For example in situations not utilizing extreme high ISOs and when shooting close-ups as opposed to wide detail (200mm 2.8) the D7100/3100/5100 can look very similar to the newer generation. My recommendation is get a D3300 or a D5300 if budget allows and don't forget that 50mm 1.8D.
Click to expand...

Thanks Ebrahim, I think my friend is going to go for the 5300.

Thanks also for the info on the D3100. I actually never took any video on it. Just used it as a camera, until I got the 5D3.

Speaking of Nikon 50mm 1.8, I have one of those I use on my HV-40 with the Letus Mini...... ha ha! I never use it any more.
 
For glass, no reason to skip the 50mm since it's cheap - the pre-AF versions are the same optical formula and can be found for $50 if you hunt around (or get an old Nikon film body with a 50 for $25 - ton of those on eBay usually). But it's more of a telephoto on APS-C (but not really tele enough when you **want** the tele look - I just rarely use one for video), you may find you don't use it that much.

But (IMHO) the best deal for the best lens for an APS-C DSLR? The Nikkor AIS (not ai, not AF) 28mm 2.8. Absolutely legendary lens, a great "normal" for APS-C, and can be found for under $300.

Best affordable lens for mids to tight on human faces? 85mm 1.8 AF. Magic gorgeous lens, even wide open. Again, under $300 used. Luscious thing.

Great do-it-all Nikkor is the 28-70 2.8 AF - the 24-70, you need to sell a kidney... the old 35-70 push pull can be gorgeous in the right conditions, but limited range on the wide end, and can flare like crazy - often has a really washed look. The 28-70 is a big beast but it's a really gorgeous zoom.
 
Guys, it is not so much about the camera, really. Usually beginners can use about 20-35% of their camera's abilities due to not knowing much of cinematic theory. I have seen great music videos shot with 550D. But it was obvious that the person behind the camera knew how to take everything possible from the camera as well as other production elements.
 
jdohnddee said:
Guys, it is not so much about the camera, really. Usually beginners can use about 20-35% of their camera's abilities due to not knowing much of cinematic theory. I have seen great music videos shot with 550D. But it was obvious that the person behind the camera knew how to take everything possible from the camera as well as other production elements.
Click to expand...

But in the world of "entey level," there's a need to find the best learning tool that doesn't sink too much money for too much camera. My assumption on someone looking for entry-level is that they are wanting to learn, and perhaps discern a possible career. If not career, then hobby. Either way, there's always the potential that it may not last long-term.

Any camera can look good if it's used correctly and if the subject is well-lit, but we're talking about an investment risk here.

Even the EOS-M is a great, low-cost starter that can produce lovely images, but it's getting harder to find. I'd recommend that in a heartbeat if it weren't out of stock most places (Amazon still has a few).
 
Canon DSLRs are good for learning because of the Magic Lantern hack which increases control quite dramatically. And what the beginner really wants, whether he knows it or not, is to learn how to control the camera to get the kind of image he wishes.
 
Honestly, most of us started with a Canon (and this is the Canon section after all).

I know someone dismissed m43 on the first page, but I'm not so sure I would agree. Yes, the Nikon and Canon colors are more pleasing out of the box, but the DSLR workflow is a steeper learning curve. Honestly, if I had to do it all again, I don't know that I'd follow the same progression I did to get here.

Disclaimer: I promise I'm not just saying this because I happen to have a Panasonic G6 for sale (link in my sig). But cameras like that one offer more video-centric features than either a Nikon or Canon, such as an electronic viewfinder (so you don't have to rely on the LCD while shooting), focus peaking to aide with manual focusing, better on-board audio and even WiFi for remote monitoring on a smartphone (turn a tablet into a live monitor is pretty nifty). You still get to learn the ropes the way you would on a traditional DSLR, but you also get tools that make it easier and more powerful when you are ready for them. Also, if he's coming from a camcorder, it will support things like unlimited clip recording and auto focus, in case he doesn't want to completely give those up (something I missed coming from live events when I first jumped in). Honestly, they are cheaper too, so you'd have money left over for things like glass (a much more worthwhile investment than any current camera body).

My 2 cents.
 
Last edited:
Right now, I don't think Canon is the best bet as a starting system unless you think you'll be able to go for the C100 in a couple of years. It feels like canon has abandoned the entry-level video DSLR market.

With just $600 to spare, I would get the Sony a5100 (body only, $350, shoots much better video quality than the T3i), a cheap loupe, and a couple of vintage primes (Helios 44M-2 48mm f/2 $50mm, then a 35mm), then either a speedbooster or a modern wide angle when you save a bit more.
 
Michael Thames said:
My friend is interested in getting into DSLR video. He is considering a Canon T3i his budget is around $600. I told him I'd ask around to see if this was a good in entry level DSLR. I was thinking of the Panasonic LX100 but it's $300 more. Anything you guys can suggest?
Click to expand...

You really can't go wrong with a canon t2 or t3i because they are so cheap. The technology has moved on but they still have a good picture for someone starting out. I've been making a living with a 60D and 5D for 5 years. I'm moving out of Canon this month to a GH4 for the 4K which is much more expensive but still keeping a 600d as a back up camera till I get a 2nd GH4 (or GH5) There really isn't much better in the $600 price range. A Nikon may have a slightly better picture, but drawbacks on the menu etc so it's still a tossup on a camera that you will want to upgrade from sooner or later. I would say get a deal on a t3i with the flip screen over the fixed one on the t2 and get the 2 standard 18-55 plus 55-250 kit lenses. A friend of mine found the t3i with both lenses on Amazon for under $600. I bought my 600D/t3i a year and a half ago for $450 for the body but for $60 extra I took the 18-55 kit lens. So cheap I can afford to hand it down to my 6 year old soon.

Panasonic, Canon, Nikon, Sony, McDonalds, Burger King, Wendy's, A&W. About the same difference burgers, fries or cameras, take your pick.
 
Last edited:
ROCKMORE said:
You really can't go wrong with a canon t2 or t3i because they are so cheap. The technology has moved on but they still have a good picture for someone starting out. I've been making a living with a 60D and 5D for 5 years. I'm moving out of Canon this month to a GH4 for the 4K which is much more expensive but still keeping a 600d as a back up camera till I get a 2nd GH4 (or GH5) There really isn't much better in the $600 price range. A Nikon may have a slightly better picture, but drawbacks on the menu etc so it's still a tossup on a camera that you will want to upgrade from sooner or later. I would say get a deal on a t3i with the flip screen over the fixed one on the t2 and get the 2 standard 18-55 plus 55-250 kit lenses. A friend of mine found the t3i with both lenses on Amazon for under $600. I bought my 600D/t3i a year and a half ago for $450 for the body but for $60 extra I took the 18-55 kit lens. So cheap I can afford to hand it down to my 6 year old soon.

Panasonic, Canon, Nikon, Sony, McDonalds, Burger King, Wendy's, A&W. About the same difference burgers, fries or cameras, take your pick.
Click to expand...

+1

Camera companies haven't really made a compelling upgrade since the Canon's first round of hdslr's. Second hand these are quite the bargain, and keep overhead down. Anything even slightly better is going to start around $1,500, and they are not that much better overall.

Whatever the OP gets, it might as well be second hand and cheap. Sony last gen mirror less offerings are not bad, but panasonic and nikon are gnerally more expensive than a 2nd hand T3i. If you go with Nikon vintage lenses, you can start with any camera body.
 
Last edited:
James0b57 said:
Whatever the OP gets, it might as well be second hand and cheap. Sony last gen mirror less offerings are not bad, but panasonic and nikon are gnerally more expensive than a 2nd hand T3i. If you go with Nikon vintage lenses, you can start with any camera body.
Click to expand...

There are some excellent second hand Panasonics that are great for video and the same-price-if-not-cheaper than their Canon equivalents. Sony's recent models are great too, and even current models are selling dirt cheap these days (Have you seen the prices on A5100 and A6000 bodies lately?). Meanwhile Canon cameras retain their value better on the second hand market because photography hasn't changed much and Canon is a recognizable name brand. The used market hasn't been so kind so Panasonic- prices on incredible tech are less than a 1/3 of where they were selling for not too long ago. And you can get FD glass super cheap, also great for starting out and compatible with M43 but not Canon.
 
Again I think the perfect starter video camera right now is the Nikon D5300. I am not suggesting that any other camera would be particularly bad oe that it wouldn't allow you to learn video and create great projects, they will do that just fine, starting from a 100$ used Canon 1100D to a Canon C500. They will all do the job for a beginner. What I mean here is what's slightly better and worse.

I dismiss Canon DSLRs solely because of the horrible moire and aliasing issues. Some limitations actually help the beginner but this is not one of them, unless you want to become an expert in aliasing and moire patterns!

I dismiss all the m43s stuff because of the sensor size, which is not the video standard s35, learning on a s35 camera will go a very long way in understanding how lenses behqve and look, I really advice getting an APS-C for beginners.

Another reason is that the native m43s lenses are limited to only that format and will not work on future s35 cameras, while buying Nikon lenses will be a very strong investment for future cameras and future video production. The cheap lens collection available from Canon and Nikon is simply outstanding, lenses that are simply un rivaled are the Canon 10-18mm, the Canon/Nikon 50mm 1.8s, the Canon/nikon 55-250mm teles, these lenses are outstanding performers and they have autofocus, image stabilization, aperture control and they are future proof and compatiable with future investments. The lens collection reason alone is probably worth getting a Canon/Nikon DSLR over a m43s or camcorder or Sony.

Third thing is that it's a bit harder to get a pleasing good looking image out of a panasonic/m43s cameras, the colours don't sing straight of the cards and require skill and the dof is deeper than standard s35, you can get a pleasing image out of them but requires a bit tweaking and knowledge which I don't recommend for someone just starting out, if he finds his first video unpleasing he might give up, starting with a Canon/Nikon DSLRs like we all did gives that first confidence boost and teaches you all the basics, after that you can graduate to a m43s camera after you have better grading experience and shooting experience and lenses. Your Nikon s35 lenses will work on future m43s cameras but not vice versa.

Fourth reason is stills and how good these Nikon and Canon DSLRs are in doing that job, which every video beginner does extensively, we all love stills!

Just get a Nikon D5300, provides one of the best images up to a very high price point, has a great lens collection which is dirt cheap, produces a pleasing image easily, has the professional standard sensor size of s35, its lenses are future compatiable, does best stills especially for AF/IS, has all the features you need to learn professional video on as a beginner.

The only down side is that you will not learn Focus peaking/zebras or have an EVF, which would be great to learn as a beginner, the Nikon doesn't provide these couple of features. Nothing is perfect but for that specific need the Nikon DSLRs are the best beginner video cameras, at the time of writing this comment!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top