Looking at purchasing my first SLR camera since I purchased my Minolta X700 in 1982. Have it down to the two listed and am struggling with a decision. Plusses with the Canon are: better lens choices, better image processor (at least according to two camera dealers,) and 18 MP vs. 16.2 w/the Nikon. On the Nikon side: 4 FPS continuous shooting and price ($200 rebate through the 28th.) Financially, I side towards the Nikon but my gut says Canon. Any helpful advice would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.
Canon RebelT3i vs Nikon D5100
- Thread starter Tdbo
- Start date
- Status
I have a 5 year old Canon Rebel and it's been great. Lenses are easy to find and the pictures are still amazing even after five years. I can't speak to the Nikon but the Canon has been great for us. Note I am just an amateur photographer, mostly family events and some mountain/outdoor/sports shots.
First, to qualify, I've got a T2i (basically a T3i without the articulating screen) and a couple of nikons. additionally I have shot with a Canon 7D and a Canon 60. I have many thousands invested in lenses. I shot over 20k photos last year across all of those cameras - ranging from stills, nature, sports, and 30-40 of my photos were enlarged (very large) and adorn the hallways of a corporate customer. I am not a pro; but likely a semi-pro.
my 2 cents: it does not matter which one of those cameras you select. they both take VERY good pictures and will serve you well. you will not notice the difference between 16mp and 18mp. megapixels alone do not determine the picture quality. as far as a Canon Digic4 process being faster than a Nikon Expeed - lol !!!
now lets talk about what you want to use your camera for - and lens selection.....
my 2 cents: it does not matter which one of those cameras you select. they both take VERY good pictures and will serve you well. you will not notice the difference between 16mp and 18mp. megapixels alone do not determine the picture quality. as far as a Canon Digic4 process being faster than a Nikon Expeed - lol !!!
now lets talk about what you want to use your camera for - and lens selection.....
Last edited:
I would first direct you to these two reviews:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond5100
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos600d
Personally, I've shot Nikon since I was in high school, though my very first SLR was a hand-me-down Minolta X700. When I bought a DSLR, Nikon was a natural choice for me.
Don't look at what lenses are available. Look at what lenses you'll actually buy and use. It's nice to see a big collection of glass to choose from, but if you're not willing to drop the coin for them or they don't fit the type of shots you intend on shooting, what good are they?
I keep a Nikkor 18-200mm VR on my camera 95% of the time. It is a fantastic walk-around lens and turned the camera into exactly what I was looking for in a DSLR.
The Nikon guy in me is going to say that the $200 you save on the Nikon will be a nice start toward the lens of your choice. The realist in me will say that you'll likely be happy with either one.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond5100
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos600d
Personally, I've shot Nikon since I was in high school, though my very first SLR was a hand-me-down Minolta X700. When I bought a DSLR, Nikon was a natural choice for me.
Don't look at what lenses are available. Look at what lenses you'll actually buy and use. It's nice to see a big collection of glass to choose from, but if you're not willing to drop the coin for them or they don't fit the type of shots you intend on shooting, what good are they?
I keep a Nikkor 18-200mm VR on my camera 95% of the time. It is a fantastic walk-around lens and turned the camera into exactly what I was looking for in a DSLR.
The Nikon guy in me is going to say that the $200 you save on the Nikon will be a nice start toward the lens of your choice. The realist in me will say that you'll likely be happy with either one.
I'm somewhat of a hobbyist, looking to get back into photography. Want something that I can use while traveling and really have potential for above average pictures. I don't want to be in a position like I was last Summer, up in Alaska trying to photograph whales with a Canon Elph (should have taken my Minolta with me.)
I'm looking at the 18/55 and the 55/250 lenses in my initial purchase (the Nikon equivalent is the 55/200.) I will add from there on an as needed basis.
I know that I probably can't go far wrong with either camera but I want to get the choice right since I will probably stay with the brand because of the investment that I will have in lenses.
I'm sure that I'm over analyzing this but seeing where my last SLR decision was 30 years ago , I'm sure that I will have this set up awhile.
I'm looking at the 18/55 and the 55/250 lenses in my initial purchase (the Nikon equivalent is the 55/200.) I will add from there on an as needed basis.
I know that I probably can't go far wrong with either camera but I want to get the choice right since I will probably stay with the brand because of the investment that I will have in lenses.
I'm sure that I'm over analyzing this but seeing where my last SLR decision was 30 years ago , I'm sure that I will have this set up awhile.
Thanks for the links and the reply.
Interesting that you say your first camera was an X700. It actually was my second. My first was an SR-T-201. I still love my X700, unfortunately it got caught in the digital revolution. Also Minolta did too. If Minolta were still in business, I would buy a new body and use my Minolta glass. However, since they aren't, thus the decision.
The $200 difference is the quandary. If they were the same price, I would probably go with the Canon. I'm not sure why though. Both are good cameras and both will take excellent pictures. I guess I'm analyzing too hard.
Interesting that you say your first camera was an X700. It actually was my second. My first was an SR-T-201. I still love my X700, unfortunately it got caught in the digital revolution. Also Minolta did too. If Minolta were still in business, I would buy a new body and use my Minolta glass. However, since they aren't, thus the decision.
The $200 difference is the quandary. If they were the same price, I would probably go with the Canon. I'm not sure why though. Both are good cameras and both will take excellent pictures. I guess I'm analyzing too hard.
I would go wih the Nikon for the Sony sensor.
Both are great cameras and great companies. I've been shooting with Nikon for 30+ years, and am partial to them.
Nikons typically have superb quality, particularly in the little things like buttons. This doesn't appear on the spec sheet, but is perhaps more important for a camera you want to keep! Nikon SLRs are fantastic in this regard. (The same cannot be said about their Coolpix line, sadly.)
As to the megapixel difference, don't give it a moment's thought. Megapixels is just a marketing thing, at this level, it makes no difference.
Nikons typically have superb quality, particularly in the little things like buttons. This doesn't appear on the spec sheet, but is perhaps more important for a camera you want to keep! Nikon SLRs are fantastic in this regard. (The same cannot be said about their Coolpix line, sadly.)
As to the megapixel difference, don't give it a moment's thought. Megapixels is just a marketing thing, at this level, it makes no difference.
JHZR2
Staff member
Glass is more important than the body, but for SLR you need to be willing to drop $ into the glass.
MP is kind of dumb, IMO, kind of like each car company trying to edge each other out with an extra cylinder or few HP.
The key is sensitivity and noise performance (of the sensor and firmware/chipset/etc) under low light/high ISO conditions and the physics of how it does it. Sometimes fewer bigger pixels are better. It is different if you are blowing pictures up to 3ft wide or something, but not for normal use.
MP is kind of dumb, IMO, kind of like each car company trying to edge each other out with an extra cylinder or few HP.
The key is sensitivity and noise performance (of the sensor and firmware/chipset/etc) under low light/high ISO conditions and the physics of how it does it. Sometimes fewer bigger pixels are better. It is different if you are blowing pictures up to 3ft wide or something, but not for normal use.
The T3i is preferred for astrophotography. There are a number of reasons, but the bottom line is that the results are superior under very low light conditions.
JHZR2
Staff member
Both those lenses are 4.5-5.6, but the 55-300 is VR while the 55-200 is not. Neither are really low light lenses (like the pro 2.8 stuff or higher end f2, 1.8, 1.4 stuff, which is super $$$), but the 55-300 you can shoot slower without as much of a change of image issues due to vibration.
I think you definitely did the best thing. Good luck with it and post some pictures!
I think you definitely did the best thing. Good luck with it and post some pictures!
- Status