Hello!
Opinions and help are very much appreciated
I am about to buy my first DSLR camera, And I need some tips, first of all, let me give you some background:
I am not in a hurry to buy, as long as I have it before March-2018 as my family's birthdays start rolling around then. Maybe less because I want to gain experience before summer.
The use I will give the camera would be photographs for events and family, Random day to day photographs, Events, and what I care most about: Travel videos (Europe summer 2018 for example) and Planespotting/Car Spotting. Do note that I do have little but some experience taking photographs with other peoples cameras and my father's very old, "Sony Cyber-shot" as well as editing and recording.
I have a budget of maximum: 840 US dollars (15,000 pesos) and I am insecure about my options.

If I go to the lower end of my budget I was looking at:
The Canon t6
or
Nikon 3400

(Pentax k-s2 in the middle but not really want it.
or

Canon t6i
Nikon 5600 For the highest end of my budget (tiny bit more)

I know the body is not as important as lens but I want to maximize my purchase. Since I probably won't be buying any new one in at least a few years. What I mean is I don't want it to get outdated. This leads me to my main point. The T6i and 5600 are either 2015 or 2016 since I can wait for the purchase (although thinking about seeing whats available on black Friday or Christmas) I want to know if there are any replacements that could come which are worth waiting for. I know the t7i is here but that is out of my budget, but will it lower? Or a replacement for the t6/3400 which could compete with their higher end brothers? This and any other tips you could give me will help me a lot and will be taken into serious consideration.
Thank you once again.

How about a Nikon D5500. In the end the D5600 only adds snapbridge which allows you an always on transfer of pics to your smartphone.

Outdated? Don't fall for the hype. A 2017 camera may be 2% better than a 2016 camera that may be 3% better than a 2015 camera at the consumer level. They have to keep bringing out new cameras to keep the money coming in, just like all the mobile phone companies do with their annual model changes. You may see bigger improvements at the pro/advanced amateur level of camera, but they come out every 3 or 4 years, if not more.

There may be a 50% difference in the capabilities of different photographers and their abilities to take photos using the best settings in the best light..... i.e. the person pressing the buttons has a much bigger impact on the photo than the camera itself.

Newer cameras tend to have more bells and whistles whereas the primary functions and capabilities see minor improvements - improved sensor, maybe, better low light performance, perhaps. Otherwise, pretty much all the consumer level cameras will take pretty much the same photo under the same conditions, unless you are particularly obsessive and look for faults and differences at the pixel level.

For many photographers the 20 or 25 megapixel capabilities are beyond what's needed (your computer monitor is around 1 megapixel, in round terms, as a comparison). Photos are resized for sending round the family or for printing on 5x7 or 4x6 prints or compressed for social media, all of which tend to reduce the impact of the camera quality.

So, in reality, it won't really matter which camera you get, and as you say, the lens quality is more important, though many consumer lenses are very good these days. The usual mantra is to get the cheapest body and most expensive lens you can afford....... however you will need to be aware that if you go with Canon, the EF-S lenses are not compatible with full frame EF bodies and EF lenses may have lower quality on a cropped sensor body than they do on a full frame body (but that's just physics) and in a side by side comparison EF-S lenses can have similar quality, or even outperform, some EF lenses on crop sensor bodies (though you tend to be in the territory of the obsessive for this to be important).

Apologies if this has made thing more confusing, but it has to be said that, really, there aren't any bad cameras and the differences between them are quite marginal these days. If you know what you are doing any camera can give great pictures.

I use a Canon T-5 for my photos right now and I have to agree, the photographer makes a lot more difference than the equipment. I handed it to some college-aged girls to take pictures of me visiting one part of Central Park, and the photos were unusable. The T-6 isn't much different from the T-5, but there are some "bells and whistles" improvements on the T-6i and a jump from 18MP to 24MP.

I will say, I get much better pictures with my Canon EF-S mount lenses than my aftermarket lenses with T-adapters. My 1000mm f/16 lens was great for taking close-up photos of the eclipse, but without auto-focus and image stabilization, using it for aircraft photos is virtually impossible.

I have a personal preference for Canon cameras, but I know others who love their Nikons. See if you can get a chance to play with both and feel out which one works better for you. If you choose Canon, just remember that your Canon image processing suite is going to be very important to getting good, quality photos, as well as cropping and shrinking them to the 2MP max size to post here!

Having more megapixels doesn't always result in better image quality. I think we reached peak performance at around 16mp (perhaps 20 on FF); since then we've seen high-mp sensors that require the very best lenses to get even 70% of the theoretical resolution. There is little point in owning a 24mp camera if your lenses can only resolve 40% of that.

I find myself using my older cameras far more as they deliver a better overall image. The old adage of having more mp to crop with is a flawed theory, too - the only way to truly preserve quality is by using exactly the right amount of zoom for your subject.

Stick with a lower resolution body and invest in some good glass. Most lenses will struggle to fully resolve even an older 18mp camera.

Karl

JakTrax wrote:

Having more megapixels doesn't always result in better image quality. I think we reached peak performance at around 16mp (perhaps 20 on FF); since then we've seen high-mp sensors that require the very best lenses to get even 70% of the theoretical resolution. There is little point in owning a 24mp camera if your lenses can only resolve 40% of that.

You're absolutely right, Karl, and I hope my reply didn't seem to anyone to contraindicate that.

You have to focus the image on the chip. You need enough light to activate the sensors. You must hold the camera steady (or move steadily with your subject). You must have the proper editing software to crop and scale it down to a usable size without inducing aberration or other defects. If you don't have these things, then it doesn't matter how many megapixels you have, your photo will look awful. Depending on your application more megapixels may be exactly what you need, or it may be a hindrance to getting proper focus, sharpness, and exposure.

I personally err on the side of "more pixels = better," but it's not always the case, and for me it has ruined more than one photo. As with most things, training and experience often matter much more than having the "hottest" or "best" tech.

I'm using a decade old Canon Digital Rebel XT, and wonder if upgrading to a Canon T6 would be a substantial upgrade to what i'm using? I'm new to all this but eager to learn and take better photos.

Keep the rebel XT for now - little point upgrading while you're still learning the basics. Consider replacing your lens first, unless you already have premium glass.

m0ssy wrote:

I'm using a decade old Canon Digital Rebel XT, and wonder if upgrading to a Canon T6 would be a substantial upgrade to what i'm using? I'm new to all this but eager to learn and take better photos.

I switched up to a T-6 back in November (my T-5 was actually my work camera). There's essentially no functional difference between the two cameras, and I could have saved a few dollars if I'd bought another T-5. While there's lots of "bells and whistles" on the T-6 compared to the XT and it has more than twice the pixel depth, there's nothing wrong with spending your time learning on the XT. As with any camera, it's your skill that makes the most difference in picture quality.

Unless the camera simply can't get into focus, has improper white balance, there are bad pixels on your CMOS chip, or some other major issue with it, wait until you've developed your craft before looking to get a new camera.