My First DSLR


Apr 11, 2016
I hope to buy a my first DSLR. I have two choises,
1. Nikon D5500
2. Canon EOS 750D
I'm beginner to DSLR and I'll use this camera for take photos of wild life (Birds) and portraits. Which camera will suite for me?

The above is almost entirely BS. It is so far off the mark that it is just...


Both will do the job fine taking photos of wildlife and portraits. The Canon 750D is a better camera even though the Nikon has slightly better specs on paper.

The 750D greatly outperforms in terms of color accuracy and also video - if you ever think of doing that in the future. Not to mention there are more lens options for Canon than Nikon, and once you become more confident with a Canon DSLR you can even install Magic Lantern (a 3rd party firmware) which gives you more features than the stock firmware. One last thing to add in is that Canon cameras are generally more easier to use compared to Nikon cameras which can be a little frustrating at first.




The above is almost entirely BS. It is so far off the mark that it is just funny. The canon's do not have more accurate color, it is the opposite they have less accurate color and less dynamic range (meaning they capture less color detail).
Don't take the previous Canon fanboy's word for it, or mine either.

Here is the scientifically measured capabilities of the sensors in both cameras.
EVS = Exposure values. The Canon is 2 exposure values behind the Nikon. Which is to say 1/4 of the available data in comparison to the Nikon.

Read up on exposure values here:

The Canon has 22.7 bits of color data while the Nikon has 24.1, again a non-trivial amount.

The Canon is the worst in class (for APS-C sized sensors) for ISO noise, while the Nikon is at or near the top.

I have owned DSLRS from both brands and switched to Nikon in around 2008 in large part due to the ISO noise issue, which remained the same pisspoor values for Canon for close to a decade. I can say without a doubt that the Canon is not easier to use than a Nikon. They use nearly identical feature sets and nearly identical layouts.
Canon's do auto-focus faster in video, but since both those cameras SUCK in video autofocus that is more like saying the Canon sucks slightly less in video. Video quality from both is good, but due to the AF speed video fans prefer mirrorless cameras for video (like some of those from Panasonic or Sony).

I don't own stock in any of those cameras. I still own one of my Canon film cameras along with some Minoltas. But I don't use them. I do use several different Nikons for still images and a Sony and Panasonic for videos.

When it comes to cameras, you should read up on several models and hold a few of them. They don't feel quite the same in your hands. I think the Canon has better ergonomics because the larger grip suits my hands better. There are Nikon models with larger grips, but I am comparing the models you listed only.

I am not much of a birder, that is sort of a specialized skillset. I do mostly sports and landscapes. I go however do the occasional bit of birding and the same with portraits (I have studio lights, but prefer natural light)

A bird

A portrait

For birding, you are going to need a LONG lens. (Telephoto) In general I like the Tamron 150-600mm as a low cost long lens (costs $1100). The Nikon 200-500 or 80-400 and Canon 100-400 are also nice but more costly.
For portraits you are going to need a good lens with a large aperature. Most love a 50mm with a f/1.8 or f/1.4 max aperture. If you can get the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 art. Avoid the Canon 50mm f/1.8 as is it cheap and nasty (but cheap).

Not mentioned but if you were thinking birds in flight you would be better served by a camera with a more sophisticated AF system as tracking a bird is tough for any camera and the two you selected aren't ideal for BIF.


Jan 10, 2014
My advice is to try the cameras for yourself.

I pay little attention to specifications and instead focus on how intuitive the camera feels. You don't want to miss a shot because you're faffing about with buttons instead of having core functions close to hand. For example, prosumer cameras have dual control dials so you can adjust the aperture and shutter speed without lifting your eye from the viewfinder. Entry and mid-range cameras have a single dial and a button hold is required to adjust one of the settings, usually the shutter. While you're messing around with that, the bird has flown away, built a nest and raised three chicks.

Another consideration is that when you buy a camera, you're also buying into a system of lenses, flashguns and other accessories. If you build up a collection of Canon kit, it can be difficult and costly to switch to another brand.

Any photographer worth their salt will tell you to spend money on the lens, not the body.



I'm not a Canon fanboy (I was actually liked Nikon quite a bit at first), and I have used both cameras. Its not bs if I literally said the Nikon has better specs on paper, which you kept on mentioning. And we are talking to a beginner here, I'm guessing he probably doesn't know what aperture, exposure, etc is (I may be wrong).

Continuing on; like the others mentioned, you'll need a pretty good telephoto lens for bird photography and those will hit you up at the price of the actual camera or more. Portrait lenses on the other hand are less expensive compared to telephoto lenses and a decent-pretty good one will usually come around $600 or more (+1 to the Sigma 50mm f1.4 art, which costs more though).

Lastly, for pretty much any type of photography you'll also need to invest a bit into a decent tripod which will cost about $150+.



I'm sorry but this is still nonsense. There is no "on paper" vs "not on paper". The scientifically measured raw capabilities of the sensor is all it is capable of period. With regards to handling and acceleration, a BMW m3 is not more capable on paper than a Toyota Camry it is more capable. You measure scientifically to determine how much more capable. The d750's lack of DR, color data and relative poor ISO performance is not a "on paper" specification but a measurement of capability. Anything else is just a in camera setting where any camera from any brand can be set to identical settings. The fact that the OP is a beginner does not change the fact that what you wrote regarding the Canon's having better colors is false. The Canon has less color detail, less dynamic range (and not just on paper, go to DPReview and compare), go to DXO and learn what those values represent. The same with ease of use. They have nearly identical layouts. The only issue I had when I switched from Canon to Nikon was for the next several years I kept trying to twist the lens the wrong direction.

Bottom line is there is no basis for your claims that the Canon 750d is a better stills camera. The only area it is better is in video AF where they are both weak and so not a honest selling point for either one.