Is the D5300 a significant upgrade from the T3i?

Danielvilliers said:
I cannot understand how people can still recommend the Canon dslr compared to the Nikon or Panasonic brand.

low resolution image.

it was the only affordable solution

Canon is lowrez

You would need at least a $ 3500 Canon 5dmark 3 to get at least the low light and no moire/aliasing.
Click to expand...

I don't understand the logic of up grading from one camera brand to another in the same basic level of performance. That was the original delima of the OP to sell his T3i and buy a 5300. Sure if don't have a DSLR the 5300 may be better than the T3i, but to sell one to get the other makes little sense.

The 5Dmk3 I will still take over everything else mentioned here. $3,500 may be a lot to hobbyists, but it pays off in a a few jobs if you do this for a living.
ML raw may be a PIA, but it's there when you need without having to buy a BMCC and records right to the CF card. This makes it
the most versatile camera out there right now. It also performs as well or better than any competing brand in low light.
 
Last edited:
maarek said:
We shot this with the Canon 5dmkIII, 7d and Nikon D800. Also some nex-5n shots. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FQUMngIP6I

Grading is a bit s*%tty but anyway, which shots are which? Should be easy with the "more noticeable in motion"-part?
Click to expand...

Would you use the 7D or even the D800 if you were shooting a slower pace video in an urban brick with tiles roof city scape. Or a fashion shoot with lots of fine patterned cloth. For my personal experience, my super dumper mega D800 photo camera stays in my bag for video. I bought the D7100 as opposed to the D600 because of the moire/aliasing and low light. I am not the proponent of 4k, raw etc. but not also about the crappy moire/alias low resolution Canon dslr 2007 technology. There is an in between and that is the problem in most forum. On one side you have the people telling you that you cannot have good imagery if it is not 4k and use raw and on the other that a 720p mush moire/aliasing Canon dslr image has brought them money and it is good enough. There is an in between that and the Nikon is very close to that. Form my personal experience my D7100 is very close to that. Very good resolution/DR/low light and high bitrate with Ninja. The short coming is the obvious fix pattern noise an 8 bit. An Apsc/cinema 35 mm sensor size camera, with true high definition 1080p detailed image, with about 12 stop DR, with 10 bit and no aliasing/moire, would be my forget about anything else and go and shoot camera.
 
ROCKMORE said:
I don't understand the logic of up grading from one camera brand to another in the same basic level of performance. That was the original delima of the OP to sell his T3i and buy a 5300. Sure if don't have a DSLR the 5300 may be better than the T3i, but to sell one to get the other makes little sense.

The 5Dmk3 I will still take over everything else mentioned here. $3,500 may be a lot to hobbyists, but it pays off in a a few jobs if you do this for a living.
ML raw may be a PIA, but it's there when you need without having to buy a BMCC and records right to the CF card. This makes it
the most versatile camera out there right now. It also performs as well or better than any competing brand in low light.
Click to expand...

Sorry if you call those two camera at the same basic level of performance. But for me no moire/aliasing is a big big upgrade, at least 1.5 better low light is another big improvement, at least 1 stop better DR is another improvement, 60fps at 1080p is another big improvement, the capacity to shoot with an external recorder for high bitrate is another big big improvement, better resolution is another improvement. If you add up all these, I would not say they are anywhere in the same basic level of performance. I cannot test the D5300 because I don't have one for now and I intend to get one in the near future. But I don't just say things out of thin air, I do test like these ones http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...between-Nikon-D800-Panasonic-GH2-and-Canon-7D , http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?310503-Nikon-D7100-vs-Panasonic-gh2-sharpness All these camera I bought and there is a gh2 and even a Canon 7D. I don't care about brand when Nikon was lacking I went Canon for video and then GH2. Now if you have any side by side test to show me how the new Nikon's compare to the Canon's, I am all yours. If it shows that it is minor upgrade as you say then I will accept, but all the evidence is pointing the other way. The OP also has a full set of Nikon glass, so he does not have to swap lens and the last thing is that for $ 3500 you can get a lot of other camera options like the blackmagic cinema camera.
 
And shooting 1080p24 RAW video with the 13.9 stops that the sensor can deliver? --> perfect camera

I've got serious doubts about which will come first, though: a good mirrorless from Nikon, or a Canon with 14 stops of DR in RAW stills mode
 
Wow, this totally devolved into a challenge of the measurebaters. The person behind the camera will always trump the camera itself.
 
R Hudson said:
Wow, this totally devolved into a challenge of the measurebaters. The person behind the camera will always trump the camera itself.
Click to expand...

Why do people have to go to extremes. So we should take Joe shooter and give him an Alexa and An ASC and give him a DV camera and compare. What is the logic behind it. What happens if you give two ASC, one an Alexa and the other one a DV camera. So what do you say about this logic? Are you sure that it is only the guy behind the camera that will make the difference. So why not just some middle ground like a good camera in the hand of good/great cinematographer will make better image than a crap camera in the hand of the same person.
 
For the record, the term "measurebaters" is not meant to be an attack. Without all the pixel-peepers out there we would not have made all of the advancements that we have made in recent years.

Sometimes though, it feels like it is devolving into a "my camera choice is better than yours, therefore I am right" type of discussion.

Also for the record, I have no doubt whatsoever that a guy with a DV camera telling a great story and lighting and shooting with sound cinematic methods in a tasteful way will be much more engaging than some unskilled Joe Blow with a crappy story, lighting, and camera work camera work on an Alexa.

Why do people go to extremes? Because both ROCKMORE and maarek made excellent points that you have decided to ignore for some reason.

To the OP, sorry for the sidebar.

I feel personally that in some ways the D5300 is an upgrade to the t3i. That being said, there is no Magic Lantern for the D5300 so that is a significant difference between the two. I owned a D5200 until very recently and for stills I prefer the Nikon look over the Canon look. The video is sharper from the Nikon and DR is a bit better but it is not as easy to use for video. It is just easier to get the job done faster with the t3i and the t3i creates nice video as well. Just not quite the same as the Nikon.

I suggest that you try the D5300 if you can and see if you like the way it operates, menu system, etc. Sometimes it is not as simple as which one is "better". It is more important to determine which one is better for YOU.
 
Last edited:
395142_10151183022085220_124801874_n.jpg395575_10151183018560220_710009661_n.jpg972128_10152850648755220_1555847106_n.jpg1497638_10153636702770220_1691284735_n.jpg1503478_10153702298790220_1114425354_n.jpg

You know what I do these photos, so the artistic side of thing is much more important to me than any mesubaration. But for me the tool is very important to be able to help me shape my work as any craftsman does. Good tool will always help you get better images and contrary to other people you are telling me I am ignoring, I have made some researches and test and I have linked to them. It is not just out of thin air that I am talking. For me all the point above show a much much better camera in the Nikon D5300 vs a T3i in terms of resolution, DR, low light etc etc and the removal of defect, yes I call it defect moire/aliasing. Imagine if I have to go and shoot some video of the Fashion photos above and due to the texture some or a lot of moire/aliasing show up!!!!!!! The video maarek video is nice but it is what it is, very fast pace action in overcast weather with a very very heavy grade on it. It fits this style, but It does not push the camera in any way. Lets say you had to shoot a narative sceen with people in suits with fine texture in an industrial estate full of bricks and tiles.

Just to finish on that point, I take great pride in my lighting skill like all the shot above where done in studio and zero natural light and zero green screen. And for me contrary to what you are saying RAW is over hyped. Putting ML on a camera that cost $ 700 dollars which will still moire/alias and shooting lower rez except the 5dmark3 and the cost that goes behind it like a raid system that will cost more than the camera is ludicrous. These people just need to know how too shoot closer to what there end product will be. They think that RAW will replace everything else, some magic wand, yes goes well with magic lantern. Learn a little how to light and it will make a big difference, but hey we have magic lantern why bother. The true mesuberators have always two word in there mouth 4k and Raw, for me I have settled to the Nikon after buying a Canon and a GH2 and nearly going BMC because it is the good enough camera. That middle ground that I have saying time and time again. In the case of my D7100 it resolute's about the gh2, has very good DR, low light and solid bitrate with my Ninja (The internal codec is surprisingly very good). The D5300 seems everything bit as good except for the resolution, but I am not sure until further test. More so that it has no Fix pattern noise and 60p.
 
I think it depends on what type of shooting you will do or want to do. For image-quality, the D5300 is definitely better, and it will therefor also be easier to work with in some situations. The downside is no focuspeaking and no direct aperture control, and no histogram (which I really disliked with the D600). The canons also have a bigger community and user base for getting stuff done, like ML, accessories and know-how.

For me I would rather have good IQ and put a monitor with peaking and histogram, and lenses with aperture-ring because IQ I cannot "fix" with ad-hoc accessories. And I would go for a cheaper body because right now because they the newest and they are really good. For the next generation of FF-bodies we will see if the future lies in DSLR or if BM and others will take over.
 
Some things strike me as being a little urban-legend-ish:

Magic Lantern: Yes, people love it. I made a lot of income with Canons and never touched it. I had zero interest in adding more stuff to the interface and early bricked cameras scared me off. (I did always mean to try it "when I had time"... you know how that goes.) In the last 2 years, several of my clients bought into celebrity endorser types. All my Canon "beauty" footage had to be approved by management teams and fashionista types. Nothing got bounced. No ML, just a lot of (at the time) T2i and D7000 shots with vintage-ey Nikkors. Pretty footage, that I've seen projected on a 50 ft. tradeshow screen. I just don't see it as necessary, others do, I get that.

Nikon interface for video: I do get it that G-lens users are pissed. I just can't get comfy with the idea of no aperture ring though - I want lenses I can use on rentals, REDs, whatever, so it's aperture rings for me regardless. So, I can change shutter, aperture, WB, ISO while looking through the loupe or monitor. I generally set my picture style before the shoot, but it's a menu away - as is frame rate. The T2i was a huge adjustment for me, so I get it that people don't like an unfamiliar interface. (After 2 years of the thing, I still couldn't recall how to get to the WB button without pressing all kinds of stuff). But really - I find Nikon's interface great, especially with the "my menu" or whatever for most-used stuff.

Nikon's lack of histogram: well, no histo while you're rolling. But my panasonic broadcast gear ("real" video cameras) don't have histograms, either while rolling or reviewing. With Nikon, I roll a second of test and check the histogram & highlights via the "playback" button. I've never, ever had a desire to watch a histogram or a WFM while I'm rolling.

Sounding like a Nikon fanboy, I know - but I don't think the above stuff are big issues at all. And if a Canon could do what the D7100 can look-wise, I'd still be shooting one - I'm not married to Nikon for video, and if any flavor of BMC could do 60p, I'd only get the Nikon out for stills. I want very different things from a still cam and a video cam.

Some of the comments to the OP were a bit harsh to my ears - I do know the paralysis of "should I buy it"...
 
I aggree with all of that, except: ML is great! it is the only thing I miss now that I no longer shoot on a Canon

In particular, I would like to stress the freedom that you get if you buy lenses that will work on any camera, not just the one you have today. For me, that meant vintage Leica-R. It also means that I see L or G glass more as an expense than as an investment. It does keep a nice resale value, but eventually you're going to sell it, it's not glass for life.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top