My wife and I have actually been looking at nearly the same comparisons. We were going to get a T2i, body only, but then I realized that my old 18-55 that my original Canon Digital Rebel came with is definitely not up to snuff with the IS lenses that Canon makes now. So now we're looking at kits, and that unfortunately broadens our search some.

I'm torn right now between the Nikon D5100 and the Canon T3i, which is actually a closer comparison than the T2i is due to the flip-out screen on the T3i. After all the reviews and comparisons I've been reading, I'm leaning toward the Canon because its full manual controls on video are significantly better than the lack of manual controls you get with the Nikon, video-wise. Here's a great couple of comparison videos that I watched that also helped me make up my mind about the Canon:

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon ... omparison/

I have to say I was extremely irritated with my D80 towards the end. I literally couldn't shoot in the dark, as long as I had a flash with me I was fine, but shooting at a party, while trying to capture natural light was impossible. That said, I think there have been some major advancements, since the last time I was in the market for a sub frame. I paid a lot for my camera, but honestly I could use it the rest of my life, and be satisfied with the photos I get from it.

Also there's a lot to be said for what digital darkroom software can do to fix up shot's with to much grain. But think about this, imagine shooting a roll of 400 ASA film, now imagine if you could shoot a roll of 6000 ASA film (yeah, yeah it doesn't exist), and get the same clarity, as you would from the 400. with the 125,000 ISO/ASA I can literally shoot in the pitch black darkness, and still see what's going on around me. That's why I could really care less about buying f/1.8 lenses now. I can use a f/5 lens and shoot all night if I want to. Sure the DOF is great on a 1.8, but sometimes, I just want to get the photo, and with digital, if I want to cheat and add in DOF in post processing, I can.

Yeah when people get into arguments over who makes a better lens (canon or nikon) they're just wasting breath. What it came down to for me, was Nikon's camera's fit my hands better, and I liked that Nikon's dials go in the same direction as a film camera. As far a quality they're both up to snuff, and if I hadn't gotten such a good deal on my Nikon I would have had no problem buying the canon equivalent.

I know it's not a point and shoot but I was wondering about overall image quality. It will take RAW files and I know you can use different Sony lenses with an adapter. I know Sony doesn't hold a candle to Nikkor or Zeiss but was hoping it would be okay for the price point. I should just get a DSLR and get my wife a nice point and shoot but with financial priorities being what they are, if I could get one that does both it would be great.

Hey, thanks for all the info Michael! Lots to think about!

nt, it's all about finding the right balance (for yourself) between image quality, price, and size/carriability.

the sony nex line isn't a dslr since it is mirrorless. that's what makes it a whole new category and allows it to be compact while offering dslr quality. as i stated above, you're able to mount just about any kind of lens on it, so your lens investments won't go wasted.

the ability to shoot raw doesn't reflect a camera's quality. for normal folks, jpg output is preferable since the camera automatically corrects geometric distortions and chromatic aberrations, etc, which is convenient. raw output is nice if you want to fix everything manually. if you're not pixel peeping, most of these new-ish cameras will give you fairly low noise results under common conditions. of course, the larger the sensor (but not necessarily higher pixel density), the cleaner its low-light output.

unless you're a hardcore enthusiast or a pro, you certainly won't enjoy lugging around a full frame camera on a day to day basis. not to mention the fact that there isn't one available anywhere near within the price range you seem to be searching. high end lenses will set you back multiple times the cost of the entire setup you're in the market for, too. many camera buffs complain that a sub-$500 kit won't deliver the same results as a $20,000+ kit

i'm sure it's been mentioned before, but check out http://www.dpreview.com for in depth coverage and, more importantly, sample photos straight out of the camera (not reprocessed by photo hosting sites like flicker).

I really hope I didn't come off as snarky. The glass quality on the Sony lenses aren't that bad, but the build of the lens had always left something to be desired. Have you thought about looking into a 4/3rd camera? I'm sure the Sony would be fine, it just depends on what your planning on doing with it. Shooting Raw is a big bonus, and I know there are a few pro shooters using it as a secondary camera. I'm just aprehensive about Camera companies that appear out of nowhere, as it seems sony has done. They have made sensors for Nikon for awhile now, so in truth I would just go with a company that has a strong reputation for good camera bodies.

All great points - especially on price!
I'm just a tad worried about actually getting back into photography and outgrowing a camera. I use to really enjoy working in the darkroom, and so there's the potential that I'd like to do the equivalent with digital photography. But I'm guessing not, as I enjoy the tactile aspect of being creative and have never made the leap to learning creative tools on the computer.

Oh no, not at all. Cannon used to get crap about their lenses in the pre digital days but they seem to be pretty damn good at this point. Nikkor is a long time favorite and I know Sony is better known for electronics than optics. It just seems like this camera might be a good compromise.

What's a good but inexpensive wide-angle EF-S lens for a subframe Canon?

We ended up getting the Canon T3i. Here's my first toy shot with it. I was shooting this quickly to put it up for sale, but then shooting it was so fun and I was so happy with the outcome, that now I don't want to sell him!


Kaijin Nobel Beast Fulcraim by James Likeness, on Flickr

^^^ Great shot!

Yes, but I'd still sell it

Some good info in here

I wanted to see if anyone else wanted to chime in on lens/setting recommendations for macro photos

I just bought a Nikon that came with a 55-200 and a 18-55

The larger the aperture (smaller the f-stop #) will allow for the best macro shots, allowing the most light possible to enter the camera when wide open, as well as full control over depth of field (which is pertinent to macro shooting).

See how much better this subject matter looks with short depth of field?


That image comparison is used to show the visual difference between f stop extremes when shooting macro, and how a shallow depth of field (smaller f stop #) is usually the appropriate option to frame your subject, etc.

Note : A quality lens on any current "name-brand" camera body will produce better images than the best camera with a poor lens any day (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/lens-or-camera.htm).

Do you think it's worth investing in a lens specifically for macro?

Absolutely!

Just get a 50mm / f.2 or with an aperture even lower than 2. Even though it's a fixed lens (not telephoto, aka: zoom capability), I guarantee that because of the quality, you'll find yourself using it more often (unless you just need a telephoto - ex.: shooting @ sporting events, school plays, etc.)

If money is not as much an issue though, and you want a quality "zoom" lens that can also shoot macro, there are many telephotos with large apertures. This starts getting into the pricier & heavier lens territory though...

I say start with a fixed 50mm with an aperture size of f.1 or f.2 and go from there.

It shouldn't be too difficult, ha, if I haven't confused you, but if you need any help in finding a lens, just pm me, and we can go from there

Boy, it's been forever since I've talked cameras. I used to represent & sell cameras & camera equipment. I miss shooting the most though.

I love it when i click on a thread that I think i'm not really interested in and then learn something!

ended up with 60mm macro, but it only goes to f2.8

crazy shallow depth of field on it. pretty wild

2.8 macro is still quality and can provide some beautifully rich short depth of field images.

This curious killer was shot with a 60mm f/2.8 macro lens :

[Image copyright Alex Goldfeder]

Please post some shots when you get a chance pickleloaf. I'm excited for you!

I picked up a Sony DSC-RX100M III a few months back. So far, I've only used it for video (it takes amazing video).

I'm looking forward to taking a ton of photos with it on our upcoming trip to New Orleans.

It was pricey, but so far I'm really impressed with what it can do for the size (it fits in my pocket).