Opinion on this camera For a rookie like myself for general outdoor shooting.i decided that I really didn't need a 800 $ camera as a rookie so I was leaning toward this one
Change my mind .wanting budget to be in range 500 - 600 at best for bundle set up .
And yes I want to do more than just point and shoot
I was in your shoes a lot of years ago. I bought a Rebel and found that I soon outgrew it. However I did buy a good 28-75mm Tamron Lens that I still use to this day. Good lenses are just as important for making photos and maybe more important than the camera. All cameras made in the last 5 years can make good photos with good lenses.
BeautifulNashv wrote:
Opinion on this camera For a rookie like myself for general outdoor shooting.i decided that I really didn't need a 800 $ camera as a rookie so I was leaning toward this one
Change my mind .wanting budget to be in range 500 - 600 at best for bundle set up .
And yes I want to do more than just point and shoot
The Rebels are GREAT starter cameras. When I contemplated a switch from film to digital a couple of decades ago, I used one as my test bed. I've seen many other folks who were starting out use these cameras and be very happy with them. The Rebel with a kit lens is just about the perfect starter camera for the kind of user you describe.
There's a very good chance it may be all the camera you ever need. On the other hand, you can easily upgrade it with other lenses from Canon and third-party options.
I'll add one more interesting thing. I know several very serious (e.g., literally "professional") photographers who typically use all kinds of high end gear... but who will sometimes use Rebel cameras for things like travel.
Your post is a breath of fresh air
I’m completely speechless at the cost for those now coming into photography
The R system as good as it is. Is just crazy money. It’s a far cry from the days when Rebel cameras offered everyone a chance to take pictures with canon.
What went wrong?
My advice to the op is don’t limit yourself to the T7, the last generation of DSLR’s (regardless of brand) are still very very capable. I still favour DSLR’s despite owning a few mirrorless cameras.
You might also consider the Canon R50, sorta the Rebel replacement of the brave new world. Camera only is $679 and it takes RF, RF-S and EF/EF-S with adapter. A few Benjamins more than the T7 but a bit more future proof. And I suspect you'll like the advanced features like eye tracking and 4K video—features lacking on the T7.
• The lens only goes to 29mm full frame equivalent on the wide end. This is significantly less wide than the 24mm equivalent of the more expensive Nikon Z30 kit – 24mm is a popular focal length for the kinds of subjects (landscapes, old buildings etc.) you said you wanted to do.
• It comes with a separate charger you’re paying for. You probably have a USB PD charger already, so a camera that used that would be better value.
• Pentamirror viewfinder, dim.
• The rear screen is not articulated. No 4K and the old 30 minute limit on video recording which was done for a European duty regulation that has since been repealed. Are you really only interested in stills?
• I don’t see image stabilisation listed as a feature.
Overall, this is technology from 10 years ago, which I guess is how they can make it so cheaply. But don’t count on being able to resell it for much, or maybe at all.
Just gotten a lot of excellent photos using its predecessor. T6. Really been an excellent camera.
It's easy to nit pick, and I'm sure af accuracy isn't the greatest, but I've gotten many excellent photos. You can get the SL2 used, it's a bit "better" than the T6, and a bit more expensive. I'd guess the T7 is in between the two. Sometimes it seems like the clouds part using the T6. So you just need to figure out the camera for you. I didn't agree reviews on the T6 after using it for a while
Beware of reviewers. They may not want to be too hard on a camera if next month’s views depend on being able to get a prerelease sample of another model from the same manufacturer. If a camera is *not* reviewed, that might be a clue.
Beware of forums. The age range skews to over 50. Many posters therefore have an unreasoned attachment to the way cameras worked decades ago. The brand partisanship problem has already been mentioned. Certainly don’t pick a brand just because that forum on FM happens to be more active or more helpful.
Beware of retailers. The way the industry works, they can get stuck with stock they can’t send back and want to unload that stock on unsuspecting beginners.
Gochugogi wrote:
Beware of the human race... All have fallen short of the glory of God...
Well I was concerned that, having decided on a camera that met most or all requirements, the OP changed his mind, presumably because of advice received here or elsewhere. And now he is being torn in all directions in multiple threads. You should see the one in the Sony forum – he’s being recommended an A9 II at three times his budget and chastised for his punctuation.
melcat wrote:
• The lens only goes to 29mm full frame equivalent on the wide end. This is significantly less wide than the 24mm equivalent of the more expensive Nikon Z30 kit – 24mm is a popular focal length for the kinds of subjects (landscapes, old buildings etc.) you said you wanted to do.
• It comes with a separate charger you’re paying for. You probably have a USB PD charger already, so a camera that used that would be better value.
• Pentamirror viewfinder, dim.
• The rear screen is not articulated. No 4K and the old 30 minute limit on video recording which was done for a European duty regulation that has since been repealed. Are you really only interested in stills?
• I don’t see image stabilisation listed as a feature.
Overall, this is technology from 10 years ago, which I guess is how they can make it so cheaply. But don’t count on being able to resell it for much, or maybe at all. ...Show more →
Yet... it is a fine starter camera at a remarkably good price, and it can produce excellent image quality.
Let me reassure our OP if he is still around: Each of the big camera companies makes one or more inexpensive "starter" cameras. While there are (usually small) differences between them, any one of them could work well. The brand really does not matter, and there is no consensus about which brand is "the best."
And camera forums attract lots of different kinds of folks. One type is adamant that their brand is better than any other brand. Oddly perhaps, you can find such people "representing" each brand. Pay little or no attention to the brand wars folks.
If you are leaning toward one or another brand, that's fine. Take a look at the brand's offerings and see if there is something that is in your budget and that looks like it will work for you. Then buy it. Don't waste a lot of time trying to fine the Perfect Camera. It doesn't exist... and in a year from now after you've had some experience your own preferences are bound to change.
Pick a starter camera from any of these brands. Start making photographs. Enjoy the process. Learn. You'll be fine.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Yet... it is a fine starter camera at a remarkably good price, and it can produce excellent image quality.
Indeed, if the OP said now he’d bought it my reaction would be “Enjoy it, you can learn on that!”, which was pretty much yours when he said he’d bought the Nikon Z30.
I personally try to stay away from canon’s lowest offerings which are the xxxD lineup, ie the T# models. They strip all the good stuff out of those, dumb them down, and it isn’t hard to outgrow them. Basically those are the cameras canon created to use up all the old parts from years prior, like fixed screens, old sensors, old phase detect AF arrays, and the cheapest built camera shell. To add insult to injury, they then turn off features and artificially handicap others.
I had a completely manual film camera before getting a DSLR. Lots of people had various K1000 FM-2n etc. No auto exposure modes , af, or anything. Most pro photos taken 20 years ago on film using medium and large format that didn't usually have a meter much less af. So the T series has waaayyy more features than the pro cameras did
Trying to remember if the T6 is missing anything? Sure, af accuracy isn't great. As far as features I'm having a hard time remembering anything it doesn't have so I guess it might not be that big of a deal. I mean sure perfect is great but it's probably not going to kill you if it's not absolutely perfect. I like the one handed operation, something I think canon used to be noted on. T7 probably a bit better, SL2 probably a step up if you don't mind used
I thought about recommending nikon myself, but it's odd the lack of responses he got there. So maybe the op should get a Canon. If I posted and had those responses on the different boards I'd probably get a Canon. Might get several different responses and disagreement, but Probably hundreds of years of combined photo experience ready to help a beginner, as evidenced
TeamSpeed wrote:
I personally try to stay away from canon’s lowest offerings which are the xxxD lineup, ie the T# models. They strip all the good stuff out of those, dumb them down, and it isn’t hard to outgrow them. Basically those are the cameras canon created to use up all the old parts from years prior, like fixed screens, old sensors, old phase detect AF arrays, and the cheapest built camera shell. To add insult to injury, they then turn off features and artificially handicap others.
But a camera is better than no camera.
If you are an experienced photographer with particular preferences and focusing on specific genres of photography... then something more expensive and specialized and powerful is likely appropriate.
On the other hand, if you are just getting started, aren't yet certain where this will lead, have a limited budget, and your interest is somewhat genera...
... the Rebel cameras are fine values that will work quite well for the users they were designed for. They aren't "dumbed down" — they are targeted at a market that wants a basic starter camera that is reliable and inexpensive, and in this role they work admirably.
Same is true for comparably positioned products from Sony, Nikon, Fujifilm, and a few others.
TeamSpeed wrote:
I personally try to stay away from canon’s lowest offerings which are the xxxD lineup, ie the T# models. They strip all the good stuff out of those, dumb them down, and it isn’t hard to outgrow them. Basically those are the cameras canon created to use up all the old parts from years prior, like fixed screens, old sensors, old phase detect AF arrays, and the cheapest built camera shell. To add insult to injury, they then turn off features and artificially handicap others.
But a camera is better than no camera.
My wife loves taking pictures and video, so I upgraded her Rebel SL1 to a higher model with advanced features. She still lives in the Green zone and mainly uses the rear screen so all those extra features have gone 100% unused. Not much interest in technical aspects of photography, but she loves the reach of her 55-250 lens! She never uses any of the buttons and dials—touch screen only—but did notice the movie servo was more consistent and faster. I don't think the market for these cameras feels insulted at a lack of features. Canon pretty much nailed their needs.
