Those looking for a new DSLR haven’t had a decision this tricky in years. In one corner, Nikon’s D5100 and in the other, Canon’s EOS 600D. Both offer similar specifications, and neither is exactly lacking when it comes to both image quality and platform support. Canon EOS 600D Entry-level in the mid-range market? Canon's EOS …
Price on Cannons website is: £575.75 (with 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II Lens Kit)
Was looking to get a previous model but this one looks more appetising.
this is all good
But where is Canon's EVIL model?
waiting some more....
Digital Rev are a Canon reseller, they're not Canon.
More exciting than the fold-out screen?
I, too, was excited by a fold out screen - about seven years ago - when I bought a (recently sadly deceased) Canon powershot A80.
It really annoys me that these days I can only get one on some monstrous dslr like this, when all I want is a conveniently sized camera with a swivelly screen.
My Powershot is still going strong, thankfully, but it too has the fold-out screen. They're not just useful for protecting the screen, you can also see how 'unusual' shots look (over the heads in a crowd, or from down at ground level) as you shoot.
The other interesting thing my Powershot did (A520, I think it was) was have a mode dial which spun all the way round - so although the video mode was right at the end, it was only one (long) click from the manual mode at the other end.
... still too big (IMO).
Then maybe the Sony NEX. Though they only swivel up (85°) and down (45°) without the protective inside-out setting.
So long as camera mounts are non-standard then you'll buy what body fits onto your lenses.
Those starting out right now should be more interested in buying a decent lens than the body. But everyone I know who has bought an SLR has stuck with the very average kit lens, bad move.
EF lens mounting makes it
I don't understand why anyone would buy a Nikon starting out at the moment. Canon allowing their low-end DSLRs to use EF lenses (admittedly at a crop) makes them infinitely superior to me. It allows you to buy a beginners body, then buy lenses that will work on a future better body.
Re: EF lens mounting makes it
"I don't understand why anyone would buy a Nikon starting out at the moment. Canon allowing their low-end DSLRs to use EF lenses (admittedly at a crop) makes them infinitely superior to me."
Eh? Any Nikon-mount lens from the old AI-S on will mount onto a Nikon DSLR - you can mount DX lenses on an FX body (and it will automatically crop the image), or FX lenses on a DX body ...
( DX = APS-C, FX = 35mm / "full frame" )
re Thomas Davie
I've mounted my 70-200 AFS VRII/F2.8 on a D3100 and used it without problem....
It gives an efective 140-300 zoom. It also works fine on a D70 (2005 vintage). Both of these are APS-C (DX) format.
I'll have to try the D3100 and my 200-400 Zoom at the weekend.
Wouild you please care to enlighten us?
On the otherhand, I heard somethere that some Canon L lenses won't work on some of their DSLR's. Perhaps there is a lot of Fud flying around in all directions.
Much of a muchness
The Nikon-F mount is present on any Nikon D-model D-SLR, so you can use Nikkor professional lenses on your teeny D-700 or other Nikon consumer model. The big deal is that you have to choose your photography eco-system carefully from the beginning. Either you stick to Canon and the EF mount, or to Nikon and the Nikon-F mount.
If you're into video, you could technically use a Canon body with Nikon lenses, provided you use a Nikon-F to Canon EF mount converter, but with that you lose autofocus (which you wouldn't be able to use on video anyway).
And Nikon don't ? - I seem to remember the last Nikon without internal screw control was phased out a few years back and it did not stop you using top end glass, just the auto-focus functionality. And let's be serious here, who's going to decide to buy a low end body and then buy several thousand pounds of glass. If they can afford the lenses and want to buy them, then spending £500 more on a high end body would not be an issue.
An investment in a good lens (good glass) makes more sense than an investment in crap glass and a high-end body that is obsolete 2 years later.
Good glass can, if you look after it, last you 15 - 20 years. I have a 300mm lens that has been out of production for a decade, and it still kicks ass. It just weighs a ton compared to the newer (superceding) models.
Re: Re: EF lens mounting makes it (AC@14:31)
Don't want to turn this into even more of a Canon vs Nikon bunfight because both systems are great, but there are a few things that need to be clarified.
Nikon's entry level bodies don't have a focus drive screw and so won't AF with AF lenses that don't have a built-in motor. They also won't meter with non-CPU lenses, so while "Any Nikon-mount lens will mount onto a Niikon DSLR", that is true only if you're willing to accept variable values of "will work".
Meanwhile as Thomas pointed out, all EF lenses will work properly and completely on all EF and EF-S bodies. And as a bit of irony, using a mount adaptor any Nikon lens will meter on any Canon DSLR, albeit with stop-down metering, and with a focus confirmation chip in the adaptor they'll also trigger the body to indicate focus lock.
Totally agree with you, but people (like us) who think like that are still more likely to be going for some thing more flexible and physically stronger than base level bodies ;) Having said that I still do miss my D70 from time to time, but then the low end cameras from back then (EOS 300D and D70) would now be considered mid to upper consumer range).
EF versus Nikon mount
The big difference between the two mounts is that the Canon lens mount plane is nearer the sensor, and is slightly larger. This means that Canon cameras can use PK and M42 screw adaptors, allowing you to use all sorts of museum pieces as lenses.
Those of us who notice these things will have seen Prof Brian Cox taking pictures of a nebula on his Canon, with an old 50mm f1.4 lens. He doesn't have an AF confirm chip, so the aperture could be seen to be displaying as "00".
Tiny specs correction
Had one for a month now (also from DigitalRev) - just to point out the video frame rates come in two flavors, depending on which TV output format you've selected from the menu for the HDMI port (!) - if you set the HDMI port to NTSC you get 1080p at 29.97, 720p at 59.94, and in PAL mode you get 25 and 50 respectively. Both modes also have 1080p 24fps for film buffs, but it took a while to work out that I had to switch the HDMI mode to see the "missing" entries!
The 600D has manual control over audio levels, which has been a *nightmare* on previous Canons - we had to buy external boxes like the Juicedlink to force the auto gain control on the 5D to die, but not any more. AGC on the 600D is just as bad, but turn it off and plug in an external mic (or preamp) and it sounds great - hopefully Canon will now take the hint and put a disable-AGC option in the firmware for the older models.
One feature that's missing in the 550D (which has the same sensor and almost-matching specs aside from the wireless flash and swivel LCD) is video digital zoom - which can give 3x at no loss of quality by sampling the centre of the CCD instead of interlaced rows, and 10x with a big hit on quality. If these new bits don't matter, I'd suggest poking about for deals on the 550D, and using the saving to buy better lenses - the kit lenses are OK but as the article says, the body can do a heck of a lot better with pro glass.
Magic Lantern is out for the 600D, but it's still very much an alpha build.
wow. now THAT is sensible
Unlike my Sonys - that insist on 25/50 because I'm in europe. It does my head in - sometime I want 30fps, somethings I don't - well actually I'd be quite happy always getting 30/60 - 'PAL' 25fps should have died with analogue SD imho.
Although this looks like a technically lovely upper-level-consumer camera, I'm always surprised that neither Canon or Nikon are trying anything truly innovative.
The remote flash control is as good as it gets. But, especially at this price range, where is the built-in GPS for geotagging? Where is built-in Bluetooth or WiFi for transferring pictures, or using an iPhone as a remote viewing screen? There are plenty of really quite simple - yet already established - tricks that they could use to pull sales away from their competitor.
Perhaps they still like making cameras for photographers...
Everything you suggest are toys/tricks that eat into battery life.
When I go out with a camera, its to take pictures not ass about with Facebook.
All I need is a good selection of lenses, a spare battery and SD card, but then again I am one of those people who cringe when I see people taking snaps holding a camera at arms length.
Re: Perhaps they still like making cameras for photographers...
Features you don't use don't eat battery life.
When will Canon see the light (no pun intended) and start installing 35mm sensors in the entire SLR range?! EF-S is hideously compromised and precludes full usage of decent glass because of the crop.
EF-S is for consumer-only...
No professional worth his salt would ever bother with EF-S because he knows that the lenses won't be portable to other higher-end bodies.
And the crop is not something that's difficult to cope with either. The top-end camera (1D) also has a crop-factor, it's the 1Ds that introduced full-size sensors and it's been passed on to the 5D since.
EF-S should die, yes
The problem with EF-S is that eejits like me buy a bunch of EF-S lenses for their EF-S Rebel XTi, then when we feel addicted enough to start looking at the wonders of the 7D their mates have, realise that it's going to mean replacing all our glass, as well as the body. At which point, going Nikon is less painful.
Not quite painless enough to do it, mind you...
EF-S work perfectly fine on a 7D. RTFM
I have several 1.6 Canon Crop sensor cameras - and not one EF-S lens in a collection costing several £k.
Re: EF-S STILL?
"When will Canon see the light (no pun intended) and start installing 35mm sensors in the entire SLR range?! EF-S is hideously compromised and precludes full usage of decent glass because of the crop."
Who am I to argue if you've decided entry level bodies should cost $2000?
Horses for Courses!!
I've had quite a few Canon bodies - a EOS500N film body being the first, then an EOS300D, both now gathering dust. But for both random event photography and the occasional wedding I do, I use a 400D as a back-up to a 5D (mk1). Quite different cameras, but the lenses I use are perfectly happy on both cameras. Here's my bargain-basement route to lens nirvana:
EF 50mm f/1.8 : Awful plastic body, stunning results on both bodies. Flash-free portrait photography indoors and in low light - what the hell else do you need? I've done several events with just this lens. £110 new.
EF 85mm f/1.8 : More expensive than above, but better build all-round. Has quite a long reach on the 400D, which is quite useful. £250 new.
EF 70-200 f/4 L : The best value for money 'L' lens available - and nearing perfection for a short telephoto lens. Lighter than the f/2.8, but with better sharpness and contrast. If you need more light, just use a damn flash. And if I need more reach, I stick on the 400D and get the 1.6 multiplier. £440 new.
EF 17-35 f/2.8 L : Buying a good full-frame wide-angle is difficult because they're mostly all crap. Even this one isn't amazing, but I get some stunning shots from it. The newer revisions might be a little better, but look at what I paid!! This also make for a great standard lens on the 400D. The range is a little short, but just use your damn legs. £280 second-hand.
The point I'm trying to make is that each lens is a different beast on each body. And that's a great thing, because it give me more value. I love that fact that my wide-angle performs as an awesome normal telephoto on my 400D. There are other routes to lens nirvana, probably cheaper that mine. But the point is, I've never felt the equipment was lacking.
Paris, because she knows how to use a wide-angle lens properly...
EF-S is for consumer-only... - nope that's not right
Not true! -' No professional worth his salt .... yada yada' There are excellent EF-S lens, 15-28 and 18-135 which are more than capable especially on the 7D. Yes professionals use EF-S too. EF-S are not consumer based.
If you want excellent lens for canon and don't want to spend a fortune on 'L's buy the EF primes 50 f1/4 and 85 f1/8.
Also most if not all, the f/4 L lens are sharper than the f/2.8 lens equivalent. While we are that it, I feel like a rant, people who are not Event/Wedding/Sport photographers who buy the f/2.8 lens are simply wasting there money and don't understand what they are doing. If you need to shoot in low light buy an EF prime for a quarter of the price. Yes I know some of the L prime are beautiful too but get real unless you know how to take picture. </rant>
In fact I'd go further, weddings can be done at f4 quite acceptable too, it just needs a little thought around setting and angles.
As far as I can see the f2.8 variants are only really needed for concerts or grim November evening kick offs! ;-)
And as an owner of the 18-135 EFS lens, I'd have to agree too that it's a corker for the money.
yes and no
"Also most if not all, the f/4 L lens are sharper than the f/2.8 lens equivalent."
when you stop f/2.8 lens down they're sharper than f/4 lenses. with f/4 lens you need to compromise in low light situation either by bumping ISO up (moving subjects) or use longer exposures (tripod)
Ooooh, you've not tried the 17-55 F2.8
With image stabilisation, I just put the flash away.
I'm not a pro, but I use it all the time indoors. If you have enough natural light coming in the windows, you can get lovely sharp portraits hand-held at 1/10-1/20th .
It's a bit heavy, and close-to at 55mm can be a bit fringe-y, but it's worth it for the greater flexibility.
Stop making them smaller
These cameras are just too small for me - and I don't have huge hands. I've got a Sony A700 which is a pretty old camera now, but it has a nice chunky design, generous grip and enough heft that the lens doesn't unbalance it unduly. I'm looking to replace it, but none of the cheaper dSLRs have the same sort of bulk.
But it looks like the powers that be have decided that if blobby shapes and saggy shoulders are good enough for the British physique, they're good enough for cameras.
They're not making them smaller
550D: 129 x 98 x 62 mm, 530g
600D: 133 x 100 x 80 mm, 570g
So err... they're not.
That's it? 600D or a D5100?
I'd compare to the Sony A580, A33 too.
The 18-55 kit lens does not have a "telephoto" end since, even at its longest focal length, the physical distance between the front element and CMOS sensor is greater than the focal length. The lens is non-telephoto throughout its entire range.
Do you have a reputable source to back up that definition? A quick Google turns up a number of definitions for the word telephoto, and only Wikipedia and it's reference really come up with a similar definition. The important part seems to be the inclusion of a negative lens group at the rear. The 15-55 II IS in question is a complex design with zoom capability and image stabilisation, but is also has a negative lens group towards the rear.
So the important question would seem to be: is the design shorter than an equivalent lens with zoom and IS elements but without a "telephoto group".
My assumption is yes, but I have nothing to actually back that up!
why is every single one overexposed? seriously, just use exposure compensation, you've ruined those shots
The first two, especially the waterfall, are probably upwards of 2 stops overexposed. There's no retention of detail in the water whatsoever, and it doesn't demonstrate anything in terms of image quality.
So, the most exiting feature was the inclusion of wireless flash.
Which, from the review is triggered by the pop-up flash.
Perhaps the reviewer should look at the Sony range, which has this feature across all models, and has always done so - it was a feature Minolta developed the system for their cameras and Sony continued with when they took over the Alpha mount.
RE: Wireless Flash