Is the D5300 a significant upgrade from the T3i?

ROCKMORE said:
I don't think you will see much difference.
...
But in reality it's all (Canon Nikon Panny) 100% CRAP consumer disposable cameras now that raw is out. The last 2 years have the most revolutionary for affordable raw cameras including a free ML option to add to many cameras.
There is no reason to upgrade to a camera for maybe 10% improvement.
Click to expand...

To be fair, one could argue that shooting RAW would maybe yield a 10% improvement on the final product in the eyes of the client. I can't speak for others here, but not counting labor-of-love narrative projects, my living comes from shooting corporate style videos and documentary pieces with a fast turn around. While RAW is an amazing tool and the workflow gets easier with new software and hardware these days, it still isn't for everyone.
The few times I or my friends shot with a black magic, it was in prores. Of course, there's the obligatory test shot in RAW, but it was very quickly evident that this was a lot of extra work for very little improvement (if any is even noticeable at all).

But this has already been discussed to death elsewhere. If RAW is important to you, these are exciting times. But I very much disagree with the notion that RAW will actually benefit everyone's final product around here. I've never had a client complain about dynamic range of my shots, but I HAVE had clients complain about longer-than-expected post processing times as well as the occasional moire & aliasing shot. So Canons in general, Magic Lantern or not, are out until they get their act together. I'll take a good AVCHD camera with proofs ready for the client within 24 hours over the alternative any day.
 
ROCKMORE said:
I don't think you will see much difference. I have been shooting a 550D then a 60D, 5D, and 600D and making a living with them. I used to rent an EX3 but since canon came along I haven't rented a camera in 4 years. I'm not a Canon maniac, just they had a huge start over Nikon 5 years ago so that's where I began.
I too was intrigued when I heard about the raved 5300 I went to the camera dealer with cash in hand, but the second I picked it up I was unimpressed. The menu and controls on the 5300 are complected for video and dedicated for stills. The camera is very cheaply constructed along the lines of the "50 1.8 Plastic Fantastic" which I own. Just my take, sorry 5300 fans.

Make no mistake most Canon's under $1,000 are cheaply produces as well, but great money makers and have never failed me, like an old taxi you just change the oil once a year.
That said the picture can look very good when the light is right, shooting ultra flat for better DR and sharpen up in post. I keep using them because the clients keep paying and the cameras won't quit.
But in reality it's all (Canon Nikon Panny) 100% CRAP consumer disposable cameras now that raw is out. The last 2 years have the most revolutionary for affordable raw cameras including a free ML option to add to many cameras.
There is no reason to upgrade to a camera for maybe 10% improvement.

Since you have those great Nikon lenses and you want to go 4K, why don't you start with a BMPCC for just $1,000 and will blow any DSLR out of the water right now. If you plan to shoot 4K why not start with something in that playing field. I don't know what your budget is, but I wouldn't waste your money on obsolete camera technology.
Click to expand...


I agree that I enjoy my Canon because it has never failed me, but a slight improvement would also be nice, I've had the camera for some time. I'm not too interested in RAW and 4k honestly, as long as I can actually grade the footage and it's at least 1080p.

I was originally going to get the BMPCC because I agree it is much better than any dslr, but I shoot a lot of timelapse with long exposure and that's just not possible with it. Also the inability to shoot 60fps is a killer for me, I would really prefer to have the option in full HD.

That leaves me with the D5300 or a Panasonic camera it seems, I'm leaning towards the D5300 however.

I still don't fully grasp the iris issue people describe. As long as my lens has been modified and fits on the camera, can't I just change the aperture on the ring which will increase/decrease the size of the iris? I don't see how it would be a problem. Also, the bad menu layout seems a little off putting, but no camera is perfect I suppose.
 
M. Gilden said:
A lot less DR? The D5200 has an impressive amount of DR no doubt, but the GH3's DR according to DxO is maybe about 1 stop behind. Both of which are a healthy amount more than the popular Canon DSLRs the OP is coming from.
Click to expand...

The numbers at DxO are for RAW stills, and absolutely no indication for video. The problem with the GH3 is not that the sensor can't give you enough DR, but that the in-camera image processing applies a super contrasty curve on top of the information coming from the sensor, clipping a lot of info in the highlights and the shadows. You have a few image profiles to choose from, and you can bring down some sliders, but no matter how you fight it, you always end up with something with A LOT more contrast than what a dialed-down D5200 would give you.

Panasonic could probably solve this with a firmware update, but it seems they are obsessed with resolution: I would think a log profile using all the DR from the sensor would be more useful in the next GH than higher resolution, but they are going 4K.

It's only a deal killer because of my preference of DR over sharpness. I know there are lots of Panasonic shooters around, and I know you can fight DR issues (e.g. by adding fill) but can't improve sharpness if it's not there to begin with. But still, right now I'd take DR over resolution.
 
The biggest point one might take from this thread is there's really no one camera that will do it all.

The more I shoot with my AC-130, the crazier I am about it. For run & gun stuff, corporate vids, etc. But it's just not capable of being sort of ethereally gorgeous as a DSLR. The 7100 really shines for big-brand TV campaign style, music video, etc.

But it doesn't do 1080/60 - and for everyone that says "I hate slowmo", well, it's a great thing to have in your toolkit. Even for corporate/industrial stuff, there's the occasional shot that can really just pop with clean slowmo, especially industrial processes, manufacturing, etc. Now we have two lesser Nikons doing 1080/60. But they're much lesser still cameras if you're at the budget level where you need your DSLR to do both.

RAW - especially larger than 1080, 2k, 2.5, whatever - is just dynamite for pulling keys that hold up on a 40" TV. Watch TV or cable for an hour and see just how many effects shots - even subtle ones - are used for major brand advertising. If you want to grow your business from a smaller level, provide major-brand style and quality for 1/100th of the price and you may go places. But so far, no affordable RAW cams (to my knowledge) do 1080 past 30p. But learning motion graphics that emulates big brand spots - it's a huge money maker, and it's a huge deal-closer even for mundane shoots, to have that stuff in your reel.

All of this Canon vs GH vs Nikon stuff can get a little silly. (And GH users can get crazy-militant! they're sick of Canon being the knee-jerk DSLR I guess). But they're all pretty lame image-wise compared to BMC, RED, etc. The only camera right now that seems to do everything I could wish for is a RED Epic. And for my biz, that's a rental - and less $$ for me.

That said, the OP had a question, and I'd venture to answer it with a "hell yes" - having owned a T2i and shooting with a 7100, I would think so. But you can get a T2i on eBay for $300. It makes some gorgeous footage in the right hands. Everything mentioned here does.
 
Truth.

Also- A t2i can be had refurbished from Canon in the two hundred dollar range these days, btw. :)

I think GH users were "militant" about the GH2 because it took so long to be taken seriously. Yes, Canon was (and to some degree still is) the knee-jerk DSLR-style video camera, but that's just as annoying to Sony and Nikon users. But I recall showing up to an event with a 2nd shooter using a GH camera, and the photographer making fun of his choice of gear.

Its actually happened more than once, one recent incident inspired me to start this thread: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...en-Photographers-butt-into-a-video-discussion

But yes, I would choose any one of the options above and be proud to shoot with it.
 
Last edited:
I am actually switching the other way now. I am moving away from Nikon and just bought a t4i after years of Nikon use. What draws me to Canon right now is 1. The ability to easily make adjustments to the camera while in live view and 2. Magic Lantern. Plus, my t4i was only $650 with 18-135 STM lens so not an expensive experiment :)

I may learn that it was a mistake to do so but I need to investigate for myself.
 
Last edited:
RupertPupkin said:
That leaves me with the D5300 or a Panasonic camera it seems, I'm leaning towards the D5300 however.

As long as my lens has been modified and fits on the camera, can't I just change the aperture on the ring which will increase/decrease the size of the iris?

Also, the bad menu layout seems a little off putting, but no camera is perfect I suppose.
Click to expand...

"I'm leaning towards the D5300"
If you are just leaning towards, then it's not an emergency and you don't even know if you want it or not. right?

If you really want to spend some cash, buy yourself a new lens. It won't loose money but the camera will eventually get tossed.

Unless you have paying work lined up to cover the cost of new equipment, I would still stick with the Canon for the moment and don't run out and buy anything just yet. Have you really pushed your camera to it's full potential, if not a new camera won't help you.

There are many upgrades you can do creating images with the Canon starting with what you have, and with you as a shooter. Have you pushed flat picture styles to increase DR and developed your skill as a colorist?

Have you tested your Nikons in the Canon with a cheap adapter? They work great. I've shot a lot of work with Nikon glass on Canon DSLRs

The bad menu is really bad. If you are used to the canon menu, you will get used to, but resent the Nikon menu.
On a shoot under pressure going into the menu becomes a tedious redundant task. No excuse for a lame menu setup these days, just a poor design.
Also from my short experience with the 5300 and maybe I missed something, but I don't think it even has a dedicated video mode. This means more complications on a shoot and opportunities for mistakes.

As far a moire I have little issue with it in 4 years. That said I have a fashion shoot next week and I would never risk potential problems with moire on a paying shoot so I'm renting a 5dmk3.
This is a much different situation than someone shooting their own work and just being pissed off when they see moire. This is my life on the line.
If a client is paying you need to use what they are paying for. If my clients don't want to pay for a rental then they are willing to accept what they get for free. Low budget clients given the choice between paying for a rental and a free kit, always take the free kit, and the responsibility for the risk. Free is free, business is business.
 
Last edited:
RupertPupkin said:
I still don't fully grasp the iris issue people describe. As long as my lens has been modified and fits on the camera, can't I just change the aperture on the ring which will increase/decrease the size of the iris?
Click to expand...

We're talking modern lenses without an aperture ring.
One of the big pros the Nikon has over other options is that it happens to be an excellent stills camera as well with a plethora of modern glass available for it from the photography side. A lot of people want to use those modern lenses for video too, but finding the ergonomics of this camera not as video friendly as others.
 
ROCKMORE said:
"I'm leaning towards the D5300"
If you are just leaning towards, then it's not an emergency and you don't even know if you want it or not. right?

If you really want to spend some cash, buy yourself a new lens. It won't loose money but the camera will eventually get tossed.

Unless you have paying work lined up to cover the cost of new equipment, I would still stick with the Canon for the moment and don't run out and buy anything just yet. Have you really pushed your camera to it's full potential, if not a new camera won't help you.

There are many upgrades you can do creating images with the Canon starting with what you have, and with you as a shooter. Have you pushed flat picture styles to increase DR and developed your skill as a colorist?

Have you tested your Nikons in the Canon with a cheap adapter? They work great. I've shot a lot of work with Nikon glass on Canon DSLRs

The bad menu is really bad. If you are used to the canon menu, you will get used to, but resent the Nikon menu.
On a shoot under pressure going into the menu becomes a tedious redundant task. No excuse for a lame menu setup these days, just a poor design.
Also from my short experience with the 5300 and maybe I missed something, but I don't think it even has a dedicated video mode. This means more complications on a shoot and opportunities for mistakes.

As far a moire I have little issue with it in 4 years. That said I have a fashion shoot next week and I would never risk potential problems with moire on a paying shoot so I'm renting a 5dmk3.
This is a much different situation than someone shooting their own work and just being pissed off when they see moire. This is my life on the line.
If a client is paying you need to use what they are paying for. If my clients don't want to pay for a rental then they are willing to accept what they get for free. Low budget clients given the choice between paying for a rental and a free kit, always take the free kit, and the responsibility for the risk. Free is free, business is business.
Click to expand...

I have an entire set of Nikkor lenses that covers any focal length I could ever possibly need, I don't think I need to invest more money in lenses.

I believe I have pushed the camera to its full potential, I'm confident in my shooting abilities, which is why I would like to upgrade to a better camera.

I shoot with the flaat profile and correct/grade all my work, and the reason I have so many Nikkors is because I have adapters for them all and don't shoot with anything else.

I feel as though I'm ready for a slight upgrade before I have to really invest in a professional quality camera. A better tool for helping me convey images I want to convey.

And Gilden, so I should be in the clear because I use pre-ai Nikkors, correct? As long as they have been AI'd?

Thanks everyone for the input.
 
RupertPupkin said:
I have an entire set of Nikkor lenses that covers any focal length I could ever possibly need, I don't think I need to invest more money in lenses.

I believe I have pushed the camera to its full potential, I'm confident in my shooting abilities, which is why I would like to upgrade to a better camera.

I shoot with the flaat profile and correct/grade all my work, and the reason I have so many Nikkors is because I have adapters for them all and don't shoot with anything else.

I feel as though I'm ready for a slight upgrade before I have to really invest in a professional quality camera. A better tool for helping me convey images I want to convey.

And Gilden, so I should be in the clear because I use pre-ai Nikkors, correct? As long as they have been AI'd?

Thanks everyone for the input.
Click to expand...

So you do know want you want that's good. Then it comes to what. To me no matter what great images are coming from the 5300 I could never get myself to use one for all the other reasons mentioned, but it is a very low cost camera and if you have that great Nikon glass not much risk there.
How much better if any, I really don't think you will see any noticable difference unless you are looking very closely like 100% closely.
The reality is most of what we all do is for the web, computer presentations, and HD monitors are a reach at an office or agency. None of this is for the big screen.
If you want to step up, save for a bigger step. a 5Dmk3 would do your Nikon glass justice. It will shoot raw, or a used 5Dmk2 the a mosaic which is also a raw camera if you have the sudden urge to really shoot some beautiful reaolution.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Rockmore, that was very insightful, and I think you've made a great point. I suppose 8bit DSLR footage can only get so good.

For some time I had my eye on the 5DMKII and III however I just recently started shooting with an anamorphic adapter that requires longer focal lengths (suppose I should have mentioned that before), even more so with full frame cameras, and I intend on using the adapter frequently. With the T3i the widest I can go is 50mm which is okay with me, and with a M43 camera I could go as wide as 35 which is cool too, so I wouldn't want a sensor any bigger than that.

Since the only things keeping me gravitated towards the DSLR's are long exposure time lapse and slow motion, I'm thinking I should replace my T3i with a G6 or D5300, so that I can still do timelapse and slow motion, and use a BMPCC for my main "cinema" camera. I would have the beauteous images of the pocket camera, and if I needed to shoot slow motion or timelapse I could use the G6. Seems like an okay idea to me, only thing is I'm not too sure on is how the G6 handles long exposure, I'm guessing it isn't as good because of the smaller sensor...
 
I cannot understand how people can still recommend the Canon dslr compared to the Nikon or Panasonic brand. You don't need to look at 100% to see the difference if you have ugly moire/aliasing and low resolution image. People have made some very nice videos with the Canons because it was the only affordable solution in the large sensor look compared to normal video camera. It got a big following and a certain momentum in the video world that is still carrying it now. The other day for a wedding I just took my D7100 and filmed some low light video from 800 and 3200 iso to show to my video guy who is/was a Canon user. He was stoked, the D7100 is easily 1.5 to 2 stop better than his Canon and this you don't have to look at 100% to see the big difference.

You can see a test I did here http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...between-Nikon-D800-Panasonic-GH2-and-Canon-7D between Nikon D800, Canon 7D and Panasonic GH2. These are all camera that I bought. You can see how much the Canon is lowrez and some moire/aliasing (It is more noticeable when in motion), you could think that it was out of focus. Now another test I did between Nikon D7100 and Panasonic GH2 http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?310503-Nikon-D7100-vs-Panasonic-gh2-sharpness , In this one people had difficulty choosing which is which in terms of sharpness. I don't have a sise by side test of the Canon and the Nikon but it gives you a good idea of the difference. Now tell me if you need to look at 100% to see the difference???? I bought the D7100 against a D600 because of the Moire/aliasing. I was even thinking about the Blackmagic camera but the moire/aliasing is a big deal for me because it is a real flaw in the image that you don't need to be a pixel peeper to see.

I have a different working philosophy as a photographer. I started in 2005 with a Nikon D70, now I am with a D800/D7100/D300/D80. As time pass by I invested in better equipment because my work was getting higher end and all the convenience of working with higher end bodies. I would say that my 12 megapixel D300 would be sufficient for 4 out of 5 job, but if you want to compete at a high level you can't just sit down. The day you have some work that require very large print and the son of your clients Nikon D5200/D3300 has twice the number of pixel and 2 stop more DR and 1.5 stop better low light performance, it can get a little embarrassing. My logic is very simple, technology advances on, why should you accept defects/artefact like moire/aliasing in today's world. I am not even talking about the resolution, low light and DR advantages of the Nikon. You would need at least a $ 3500 Canon 5dmark 3 to get at least the low light and no moire/aliasing. Some claim that you can use magic lantern raw, but it is practical and economical in any way. On eoshd Forum someone was talking about what harddrive system and the lowest price was some $ 700 raid system and this is not taking into account the future cost of media. For the $ 700 you could buy a Ninja and shoot in much more editing and size friendly codec. The only little flaw I would say would be the 8bit. The D7100 is much better at dealing with Banding than the gh2 for example and shooting at a little higher ISO would add some dithering with noise.
 
I'm very happy I sold my Canon a couple of years back, but I understand that if your camera is making you money, and you're comfortable using it, there may not be a real need to change it.
For a new buy, though, the only Canon that can make some sense is the 5D3, everything else is outdated by now, there are much better options out there.

The 5D3 does make a lot of sense, though, if you have $3500 to spend and can deal with the RAW workflow (I wouldn't have a lot of trouble with it, but I understand that most people would). It's not just that it's sharper and better than 8-bit: going RAW gives you better DR, up to 3 stops with the 5D2 (here).
It only works fine on the 5D3, though: it needs to have a CF slot to begin with, and in any case everything but the 5D3 still has aliasing/moire.
 
Samuel H said:
I'm very happy I sold my Canon a couple of years back, but I understand that if your camera is making you money, and you're comfortable using it, there may not be a real need to change it.
For a new buy, though, the only Canon that can make some sense is the 5D3, everything else is outdated by now, there are much better options out there.

The 5D3 does make a lot of sense, though, if you have $3500 to spend and can deal with the RAW workflow (I wouldn't have a lot of trouble with it, but I understand that most people would). It's not just that it's sharper and better than 8-bit: going RAW gives you better DR, up to 3 stops with the 5D2 (here).
It only works fine on the 5D3, though: it needs to have a CF slot to begin with, and in any case everything but the 5D3 still has aliasing/moire.
Click to expand...

I have a 4 day commercial shoot next week where I have to rent a 5Dmk3 and looks like 4 more spots by June. I also needed to rent a 70-200 f4L IS so yesterday I had a good reason to buy it finally. Very nice lens long over due. I should buy the 5dmk3 also but don't have the extra cash. The mk3 is really a flexible solution with raw, but if you don't need it you have simpiler options. Yes probably a load of pain to work with raw, but well worth the effort for the IQ. For a 30 second commercial you plan every shot, so for me at the moment the 5Dmk3 is the most efficient way to go.
 
That's the greatest, most incredible, awesomest "stop this silly discussion, get out and shoot" message that anybody has ever posted on any forum. Ever.

(and no, there's no way anybody is going to guess any shots)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top