What is the best DSLR camera for this purpose within my budget?

[Andrixo]

I am looking to spend £1000 on a camera, I want to use it for video recording but mainly for photos, landscape photos and a lot of macro photography. The problem is that I am unsure of whether to get crop or full frame, is full frame worth it? I am generally looking and Nikon and Canon cameras. Detail and picture quality is probably the most important aspect.

 

[zechstiver]

I would definitely look for a Nikon camera one of the best brands for DSLR cameras. The full frame part is i think a better choice because you can get more of the landscape in a shot and it is way better quality than cropped.

 

[basroil]

I am looking to spend £1000 on a camera, I want to use it for video recording but mainly for photos, landscape photos and a lot of macro photography. The problem is that I am unsure of whether to get crop or full frame, is full frame worth it? I am generally looking and Nikon and Canon cameras. Detail and picture quality is probably the most important aspect.

As soon as you throw in macro you throw out SLRs in your price range. Even the cheapest macro lens will be half your budget! And also forget full frame because you need at least twice that budget to even buy a body alone!

Ignore the above post because he clearly doesn't know what he's talking about. Instead, first consider if your friends have SLRs and are willing to lend you lenses. If they are, match their camera brand. If not, you will need to ignore macro for now (there are some options for ~300 available for both mounts, but that will require you to drop body quality) and consider what you will purchase in the long run. Canon tends to make better wide angle lenses (some really good nikon ones too mind you, just in general), while nikon has more cameras without an AA filter (good for landscapes, again, canon also has them, just fewer). 10 years ago I would have said never to consider nikon, but today both are great choices. Check out the Canon 760D and Nikon D5500, go to a store and hold them. Buy the one that's more comfortable in your hands after 10min (10min playing with one, 10min playing with the other). Then start saving up for eventual lens purchases!

 

[Andrixo]

Thanks for the responses, what about if I want to take photos of wildlife? Is the average 6 fps which seems to appear on many NIkon cameras really enough?

 

[basroil]

Thanks for the responses, what about if I want to take photos of wildlife? Is the average 6 fps which seems to appear on many NIkon cameras really enough?

For wildlife, you'll need telephoto lenses, which are very expensive if you care about quality. If you can live with second rate lenses, either company is fine

6FPS will never be enough if you're bad at it, and 3fps is more than enough if you know what you are doing. Learn photography and then you'll know why it was a stupid question.

 

[Andrixo]

Thanks for the responses, what about if I want to take photos of wildlife? Is the average 6 fps which seems to appear on many NIkon cameras really enough?

For wildlife, you'll need telephoto lenses, which are very expensive if you care about quality. If you can live with second rate lenses, either company is fine

6FPS will never be enough if you're bad at it, and 3fps is more than enough if you know what you are doing. Learn photography and then you'll know why it was a stupid question.

Yeah, I have heard that 3 FPS is enough for most situations but then I have seen professional photographers label 6 FPS as 'slow', that is why I asked.

 

[basroil]

Yeah, I have heard that 3 FPS is enough for most situations but then I have seen professional photographers label 6 FPS as 'slow', that is why I asked.

That's because some of them want bird in flight or other shots and want to be able to pick between minute changes. I personally used my 1DMKIII at 10fps for tennis, shooting it such that one shot was the setup right before the ball hits the racket, one with ball on racket, and one right after for the follow-through. It's not that I needed 10FPS to capture the ball on racket, it's that I wanted all three so I could pick without having to stay more than 30 min for that assignment!

High FPS is counterproductive to your learning actually, and you should ignore that until you know how to use your camera and understand your subject

 

[bicycle_repair_man]

When you buy a camera, you're also buying into a system of lenses, flashguns and other accessories, so think about the long term.

How a camera feels is more important than optical quality, in my opinion. You don't want to miss a shot because you're faffing about in menus instead of having core features close to hand.

Have you considered the second-hand market? You could pick up a good body, such as a D7000 or EOS 60D for about £350, a Tamron 90mm macro lens for about £200, a Tokina AT-X Pro 11-16mm lens for about £300 and a flashgun for about £100. If you plan on doing 1:1 macro then you'll need a flashgun.

 

[bjornl]

I am looking to spend £1000 on a camera, I want to use it for video recording but mainly for photos, landscape photos and a lot of macro photography. The problem is that I am unsure of whether to get crop or full frame, is full frame worth it? I am generally looking and Nikon and Canon cameras. Detail and picture quality is probably the most important aspect.

Given your budget you are going to have to choose one thing to focus on at the beginning.
The Macro lens will be slightly cheaper on a Nikon if you are willing to get an older lens. There are plenty of older 50 and 55mm macro lenses which can be had for cheap. On the lower end bodies these will be manual focus, but macro is almost always manual focus so that is normal.
For a wide angle the best low cost one is the Sigma 10-20 f/4.5-5.6. It is available on both Nikon and Canon.

Full-frame is worth it, but that is sort of like asking is a BMW worth it. Of course it is, but it's still very expensive.
The cheapest full-frame camera is typically the Nikon d600. It had an issue with oil spots when it first came out. This was fixed on all of them for free but the model was tarnished so Nikon quickly came out with the very similar d610. Leaving the d600 unwanted despite being nearly identical. I am not suggesting full-frame given your budget, but if you do decide to look at it, begin by looking at the cheap one.

Detail and such on both of them is good. In general Canon has lagged behind in the sensors technology, and this is more obvious on the aps-c cameras. Don't rush to judgement. Look at the raw capabilities on Dxomark.com and then look at the reviews and sample images on dpreview.com Both of those are the defacto standard bearers in digital photography.

For Macro you must also budget a tripod, ideally a flexible one which can be used at all sorts of angles.
Here is an older photo from a few years ago.
https/s3.amazonaws.com/masters.galleries.dpreview.com/1880360.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWXD4UV3FXMIDQLQ&Expires=1460450490&Signature=XwiLiRdnruMhSRx8HTZWyj96KPw%3D

In it you can see the lowest cost macro tripod I have found. It is a Benro and I got it from B&H in NY. I recall it costing less than $150. It is comparable in build to my much costlier Manfrotto.

Be careful of internet advice on expensive purchases. They are worth exactly what you paid for them. Most have only used 1 brand and can't conceive of why anyone would want to use anything different. A great many want you to validate their purchase by buying the same.