Is a Canon 700D worth the extra money in comparison to the 1200D for a beginner?

derv_ · 16-05-2015 06:25PM #1

Hi, this is my first DLSR purchase and I've narrowed my search down to a Canon 1200D or a 700D (I chose the 1200D on price, and the 700D as a suggestion from a friend). I know the 700D is better than the 1200D is some specs, but do you think for a beginner that it is worthwhile spending a extra €300 for the 700D? Thank you.

Pat Dunne · 16-05-2015 09:17PM

What type of photography do you plan on doing?

Based on that you should then draw up a checklist as to how each camera copes best with your perceived demands.

For general photgraphy the 1200D will meet your demands. If you plan on getting into sports photography, the 700D will excel.

Both are good cameras and you just need to base your purchase on what is best for the type of photography you intend doing.

One way or the other enjoy your choice.

CabanSail · 17-05-2015 09:30AM

Bare in mind that the Entry Level DSLR's now generally have more capability than high end models did 5-10 years ago.

The more expensive camera bodies will have some better features, but you have want to use them. If you do not know what they are then chances are you will not need them at this stage. If you have the extra cash available my advice would be to start with the entry level body and invest the extra in some good quality glass, rather than the kit lens. From my experience the Canon Kit lenses are OK but not great. You will tend to keep glass for many years but update bodies on a more regular basis. By the time you hit the limits of the entry level body there will be a newer and better body available, probably at a better price.

derv_ · 17-05-2015 10:18AM

Hi Pat, not sure what type of photography I want to do... anything really, landscape, portrait, sport. Anything really until I find which I like best.

Pat Dunne · 19-05-2015 09:43PM

derv_ wrote: »

Hi Pat, not sure what type of photography I want to do... anything really, landscape, portrait, sport. Anything really until I find which I like best.

Hi derv_
If you are not going to specialise, I would suggest that you go with the 1200D to start off with. This will also allow you a bit extra to buy a lens or two.

derv_ · 21-05-2015 07:18PM

Hi Pat, I was just in a camera shop and he advised me to get an inbetween camera - the 100D. What would you think yourself? thanks

gzoladz · 21-05-2015 08:42PM

I have the 100D, the main difference is that the body size is significantly smaller than either the 1200D or 700D.

I like it, but bear in mind that if you have big hands you may find it rather uncomfortable to use.

Pat Dunne · 21-05-2015 10:05PM

derv_ wrote: »

Hi Pat, I was just in a camera shop and he advised me to get an inbetween camera - the 100D. What would you think yourself? thanks

Hi derv_
I'm afraid I have no direct experince of either camera, as my current is a 70D and my previous was a 600D. Both of which I really enjoy/enjoyed using.

However you might wish to read through the following links.

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/0450645720/consumer-dslr-camera-roundup-2014

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-1200D-versus-Canon-EOS-700D-versus-Canon-EOS-100D___940_870_871

Based on the above articles the 100d appears to be a very decent performer.

Zascar · 26-05-2015 11:16AM

I'd buy a 2nd hand body - there is not much of a difference at that level. Spend your money on a good prime lens - thats what makes the biggest difference for great quality photos. I have a 600d for sale at the moment on adverts - just over €300. Something liek that will do everything you need. Then maybe get a 50mm or a 40mm f2.8 pancake

Ciarafoto_ops · 23-11-2015 08:15PM

Hi derv

did you go with the 700d - how is it going for you? i was thinking of splashing out on one

AndersLimpar · 23-11-2015 08:21PM

It wont make any difference.
Buy the cheaper one and spend the savings on a good lens instead.

Ciarafoto_ops · 23-11-2015 09:11PM

AndersLimpar wrote: »

It wont make any difference.
Buy the cheaper one and spend the savings on a good lens instead.

Cheers Thanks Anders

cortinaG · 27-11-2015 02:39PM

I've been deciding between the 3 of these cameras,
The main downside of the 1200d is an inferior rear screen and its lower iso, 6400 as opposed to 12,800 (boostable to 25,600)
That's a big difference when shooting in low light.
What appears to be the main selling point of the 700d is the flip out rear screen, not hugely important maybe until you want to take a shot at a low angle or some astrophotography, (he says with a sore neck from trying to look at the screen on a tripod)
I seem to be leaning towards the 100d with the 18-55 mm is stm lens, although the small size is holding me back,
€500 in currys or £330 in Jessops. Cannon cashback applies to both.
1200 does 3 fps, 100d does 4 fps and 700 d does 5fps, all 3 have the same sensor.
Hope this helps.

Zascar · 27-11-2015 03:41PM

All the extras on the lower end cameras are gimmicks you'll rarely use. Focus on what makes a difference on your photos. better sensor, better iso performance, but mainly a better lens. The standard 18-55mm kit lenses are imo totally rubbish. Get a 40mm or 50mm prime, or a f2.8 zoom. Dont be afraid to buy used, I've bought almost all my gear used - cameras are generally fairly bullet proof and people take care of them. Look on adverts - some great deals

CelticRambler · 28-11-2015 01:44PM

cortinaG wrote: »

The main downside of the 1200d is an inferior rear screen and its lower iso, 6400 as opposed to 12,800 (boostable to 25,600)
That's a big difference when shooting in low light.

Admittedly, I'm a relic from the dark ages of film, but I think it's easy to get carried away with extreme values. In my film days, the highest ISO I ever used/needed was 1600, taking shots of a choral group rehearsing in a cathedral. From about 25m, with a 200mm zoom at max, I had over-the-shoulder shots of the sheet music where you could read the notes.

You're getting into very specialised situations where can't work with f/stops and shutter speed and need crazy-fast ISO values! Hardly the realm of a beginner!

cortinaG · 28-11-2015 02:24PM

CelticRambler wrote: »

Admittedly, I'm a relic from the dark ages of film,

You're getting into very specialised situations where can't work with f/stops and shutter speed and need crazy-fast ISO values! Hardly the realm of a beginner!

I agree with you completely and I'm a bit of a relic myself in terms of wondering just how good our shots would have been back then if we had lightroom,
Brighten this, darken that, saturate, crop, sharpen, pinch, bloat, spot heal etc etc,
You got what you shot,
But when you see an unplanned shot, and f3.50-30 secs is still way too low, i suppose it's nice to have the option to crank up the iso.
Also, it would be helpful if and when the O P
wants to give night/astro a shot.

Ciarafoto_ops · 28-11-2015 03:07PM

Zascar wrote: »

All the extras on the lower end cameras are gimmicks you'll rarely use. Focus on what makes a difference on your photos. better sensor, better iso performance, but mainly a better lens. The standard 18-55mm kit lenses are imo totally rubbish. Get a 40mm or 50mm prime, or a f2.8 zoom. Dont be afraid to buy used, I've bought almost all my gear used - cameras are generally fairly bullet proof and people take care of them. Look on adverts - some great deals

Good tip - in the market for a tripod too so will have a look on adverts!

Ciarafoto_ops · 28-11-2015 03:13PM

CelticRambler wrote: »

Admittedly, I'm a relic from the dark ages of film, but I think it's easy to get carried away with extreme values. In my film days, the highest ISO I ever used/needed was 1600, taking shots of a choral group rehearsing in a cathedral. From about 25m, with a 200mm zoom at max, I had over-the-shoulder shots of the sheet music where you could read the notes.

You're getting into very specialised situations where can't work with f/stops and shutter speed and need crazy-fast ISO values! Hardly the realm of a beginner!

Some of this is already going over my head

i cant imagine id need higher than iso 1600! Thanks

cortinaG · 29-11-2015 03:27PM

Currys are after reducing the Canon 100d with the 18-55 mm IS STM lens to €429, down from €499. Reduction of €70.
Body only is €419 so effectively You are getting the IS lens for a tenner.

CelticRambler · 29-11-2015 03:50PM

Have you got the 50€ Canon cashback offer on that over there too?

Edit to add: meh! Can get a 100D body for 390 on amazon.co.uk, 370€ on amazon.fr, or 360€ elsewhere ... and having read this:

However if you’re happy with the lower shooting speed and the lesser quality LCD screen, there are a lot of other similarities between the two. It’s also worth considering that you could afford a 50mm prime lens with the money you’ll save by choosing the EOS 1200D over the 100D.

As the 1200D is on offer at the moment for less than 300€, I think the OP would be as well to do what they (and Zascar) recommend with the extra 130€

cortinaG · 29-11-2015 07:16PM

Yes they do a €40 cashback on that package,

just seen that Harvey Norman now have it for €399, €359 after cashback,
Sorry now I jumped at the Curry's offer...ah well, I'm still glad I went for the IS lens option as opposed to body only.

heres a link to Harvey Norman 1200d, 18-55 mm (III) + an f 1.8 50mm prime for €539.

http://www.harveynorman.ie/digital-cameras/digital-slr/canon-1200d-dslr-twin-lens-kit.html

CelticRambler · 29-11-2015 09:40PM

cortinaG wrote: »

Yes they do a €40 cashback on that package,

just seen that Harvey Norman now have it for €399, €359 after cashback

Oooh, that's dear - and 40 not 50€? You do seem to be stung for higher prices "back home"

The same offer in my local supermarket is 399€ (+10€ store voucher cashback + 20€ Canon) ... but I was able to get even better than that in a "flash sale" - 357€ It was cheaper to buy the 1200D with the 18-55mm III lens than just the body (247€ net after cashback) then add the 50mm for 88€; that leaves me with enough to buy the 10-18mm (185€ net after cumulative discounts)

Edit: I've chosen not to buy the IS lens because this is also meant to be a "training" camera for my children, and I'm a Bad Dad who thinks they should learn how to control camera shake like I had to!

cortinaG · 29-11-2015 09:59PM

great price for the 1200d but their price for the 100d with the standard lens is €429,
the same as Currys with the IS lens,
and dearer than Harvey Norman or sam mcCauley's with the IS lens.
It's swings and roundabouts.

CelticRambler · 29-11-2015 10:33PM

Yeah - but it is just a supermarket! :pac:

The site where I got mine matches Currys' price (or 399€ for the non IS) but they don't deliver to Ireland so not much use to anyone there ...

Out of interest, and in the context of the OP, what features of the 100D prompted you to pick it over the 1200D? I chose to sacrifice things like the touchscreen and faster ISO in favour of size (more like my old 1000NF) and supposedly longer battery life because when I go off-piste, I go a long way off! I read afterwards that the 1200's got faster autofocus too, but a review of 50mm lenses suggested that it's as much to do with their motors as the camera body. I'm rarely in that much of a hurry that it'd matter ... though if I change my habits with the new f/1.8 lens, that might change!

Is a Canon 700D worth the extra money in comparison to the 1200D for a beginner?

Comments