Good camera??

[Big_Tom]

I know someone that is selling a Canon rebel t5 with 2 lenses. A 18-55 and 75-300 asking 400.

Currently I have a Nikon D3000 and just wanted to see if this would be a major upgrade or just a new camera. Ive haven't looked at the specs of it to see if there any difference.

Sent from my Alcatel_5044R using Tapatalk

[UWone77]

What lenses are you using now with the Nikon? What kind of photos are you going to shoot?

[Big_Tom]

Right now all I have is the 18-55 Nikkor. That was another thing was instead of investing in a new cam. And go ahead a get a couple new lenses.

I would like to get in to some wildlife photography and maybe so action shots. Like sports like baseball and kiddo riding four wheelers

Sent from my Alcatel_5044R using Tapatalk

[UWone77]

My knowledge of Nikon cameras is limited. Used a D610 briefly until my wife told me I had to give it to the sister in law since we had too many cameras.

I would say a D3000 is about on par with a Rebel. If you want to move to Canon gear, then do it, seems like a good deal. If not just stick with the body you have now and invest in lenses.

[Big_Tom]

Yeah the only difference I can see is the the Canon shoots video while my Nikon doesn't. But I'm not one to video something. I'll start look in to lenses. Maybe I can find some that will work with my d3000 and when I upgrade to better camera they will work with it.

Sent from my Alcatel_5044R using Tapatalk

[Thompson]

The one downside to Nikon is it's lack of good camera options for videography at the beginner levels. The Canon beginners line has a lot more built in features to aid ease of videography (ie: rotating screen) - which for some features aren't even present on the Nikon professional series (rotating screen; dumb move by Nikon if you ask me).

If you do decide to stick to Nikon - in terms of glass investment, I would highly recommend you only look to buy "FX" (full frame sensor) lenses. Yes - they cost more than DX (x1.5 crop sensor) lenses, but they are also of much higher glass quality. The more serious you get about photography, the more likely you're gonna be to eventually upgrade to a nice, "pro" body --> meaning a full-frame camera. Once you switch to full-frame, you will not be able to use DX lenses. FX lenses are neat because they share compatibility with both FX and DX bodies. A benefit (or detractor) of a FX lens on a DX body is the crop factor. For example, if you have the NIKKOR FX 70-300mm lens on a D3000, if your focal length is at 70mm, you're actually looking at 105mm (= 70*1.5) in the viewfinder/eye piece. Gives you a bit more "zoom" for stuff like wildlife/outdoor photography.

... one day I will jump from the DX (D5100) to the FX world.

Also, sent you a PM.

[alamo5000]

The one downside to Nikon is it's lack of good camera options for videography at the beginner levels. The Canon beginners line has a lot more built in features to aid ease of videography (ie: rotating screen) - which for some features aren't even present on the Nikon professional series (rotating screen; dumb move by Nikon if you ask me).

If you do decide to stick to Nikon - in terms of glass investment, I would highly recommend you only look to buy "FX" (full frame sensor) lenses. Yes - they cost more than DX (x1.5 crop sensor) lenses, but they are also of much higher glass quality. The more serious you get about photography, the more likely you're gonna be to eventually upgrade to a nice, "pro" body --> meaning a full-frame camera. Once you switch to full-frame, you will not be able to use DX lenses. FX lenses are neat because they share compatibility with both FX and DX bodies. A benefit (or detractor) of a FX lens on a DX body is the crop factor. For example, if you have the NIKKOR FX 70-300mm lens on a D3000, if your focal length is at 70mm, you're actually looking at 105mm (= 70*1.5) in the viewfinder/eye piece. Gives you a bit more "zoom" for stuff like wildlife/outdoor photography.

... one day I will jump from the DX (D5100) to the FX world.

Also, sent you a PM.

I don't use Canon or Nikon either one but this is good advice. When you build up a lens kit build it up using glass compatible with full frame sensors. At one point in time I had nothing but crop sensor glass and eventually I traded or sold all of it for full frame lenses. After I got to that point changing over to full frame was just a camera body swap away.

If you're 100% sure you want to stay with a crop sensor forever then fine, but if you think you want to pursue it further then slowly over time build your full frame lens collection out while selling off crop lenses when possible.

If that all sounds like greek--here is a basic rundown. I have no idea your familiarity so I don't mean to be patronizing to you. On a crop sensor the sensor (the part that records light) is physically smaller. On a full frame camera it's physically bigger.

A lot of companies make lenses that only project a circle of light big enough for the smaller sensors. These are the 'crop sensor lenses' which go by different names from different camera companies. If you put a crop sensor lens with it's smaller light circle on a full frame lens you will have a picture with a big black ring around it where there was no exposure.

On the flip side a full frame lens projects a bigger circle of light inside the camera so it can be used on the bigger sensors and the smaller sensors.

Long term planning is a good thing when it comes to expensive lenses and camera gear. It sure beats trying to sell everything and start over from scratch. The expense there actually prevents a lot of people from moving up into bigger formats even though they want to do so.

[Big_Tom]

Thanks guys for the help. One day I do plan on going FF. So I'll make sure I get lenses for them.

Sent from my Alcatel_5044R using Tapatalk