Nikon D5100 vs canon T3i(600D)

[BurgerMcDo]

Any photographers here in Bitog?
I need your advice.

I am trying to decide which one to buy between the two.I have been reading reviews and i found out that the D5100 is better in image quality specially high ISO while the T3i is better in video mode.

i am not really a video person and I would mainly use this camera for photography.

My main question how much is the difference on image quality on this two DSLRs and would I really need or use the high ISO on d5100?

Thanks in advance.

 

[justinf89]

I actually just purchased the d5100 and have to say, I absolutely love the camera, and the hd video. I'm not an expert on canon but I highly recommend the nikon.

If it would help, id be happy to post some pics I shot out my back yard today.

 

[JHZR2]

Not to be rude, but if you have to ask, you will never have the skill to make a discernable difference between the two, IF there is a difference.

Its not a mark against you, its just that these new cameras are so capable and good that it will be tough to really see a difference, unless youre shooting poster-size stuff.

And even then, your lenses (where the real $$$ is) will make a far bigger difference than the body.

So the questions mainly are if you have old lenses in the Nikon or Canon system already, and if not, then which feels better in your hand and in use.

To get good glass, which is the most important, youll be spending $1000/lens minimum for the most part. Look for f/2.8 lenses if you can.

 

[huffmuds9320]

I'm not a photographer so what I'm commenting here is just my own opinion and may not be 100% accurate.

I have a Canon Rebel T1i (500D). Before I bought my dslr I too was deciding between Canon and Nikon. I ended up getting the Canon because I like the way it feels in the hand, the menu navigation, control layout and a few other things. Now if someone ask me which camera to buy I will not say get brand A instead of brand B. Therefore I'm not going to highly recommend the camera brand I'm using because nothing is one size fits all. Instead I say go out and test out a few cameras and decide for yourself. Its like buying a car, go out and test drive a few cars and decide from there.

To me I see the video feature on dslr as a bonus rather than the main key factors. As for using high iso that really depends on the situation. I personally tend to use a lower iso when possible because when you use a very high iso image will get grainy. Lenses are important, most of the time it will come with kit lenses which is usually the 18-55mm f/4-5.6. It is a good all around use lens for the most part but not as great in moving low light conditions. Note that these cameras are cropped sensors (APS-C size). I'm not sure on the Nikon system, with Canon I know cropped sensor cameras can use both full frame and cropped sensor lenses. Cropped sensor lenses do cost less but if you ever upgrade to a full frame those will not work on those cameras.

Another thing is you can buy the camera body only if you don't like or want the kit lens. But I would say its good to have to start with plus it doesn't add that much more to the cost when you buy the camera. Sometimes you can get a nice camera package with 2 lenses a 18-55mm and 55-250mm which in my opinion make a very good basic complete kit. Lenses are expensive and you will buy lots of accessories as well. It is an expensive hobby but taking pictures is fun.

Again just my opinions.

 

[tomcat27]

I've got both brands: a Canon T2i and a couple of Nikons and follow both brands very closely. I have been known to shoot 2000+ photos in a weekend; and I also have a friend who shoots for ESPN and a couple of the local sports teams with Canon equipment. He, and my experience, will echo what others have said: both of those are very good cameras and neither one is "better" than the other. It is likely more important to "focus" on your lens choices although that can lead to analysis paralysis.

What kind of shooting do you do? If you are really just after general pictures (people, candids, landscape) its really hard to beat the all-in-one range of 18-200 or 28-200. Yes, I have some heavy 2.8 glass that cost some coin and yields very good results - but I am not ashamed to carry my 28-200 Tammy. (although I always get compliments and a sore arm with my Nikkor 70-200 f2.8)

All that being said, I prefer my Nikons...

 

[sleddriver]

Which one feels better in your hands? Do you have to reach for dials & buttons or are they already under your finger? Does your wrist get in a bind when you hold it up to your eye?

What about the menus? How far do you have to dig to get to the feature(s) you'll regularly use? Do the menus make sense to you? Or were they written for someone else with a different brain?

Just a few thoughts...

 

[rg200amp]

Originally Posted By: BurgerMcDo
Any photographers here in Bitog?
I need your advice.

I am trying to decide which one to buy between the two.I have been reading reviews and i found out that the D5100 is better in image quality specially high ISO while the T3i is better in video mode.

i am not really a video person and I would mainly use this camera for photography.

My main question how much is the difference on image quality on this two DSLRs and would I really need or use the high ISO on d5100?

Thanks in advance.



I started out with a Nikon D5000 not too long ago.

I now have a D300s as a main body and a D7000 as a back up/second shooter.

The ISO capabilities of the D7000, carried over to the D5100, is amazing! It's not a question of if you need it. But when you would want it.

It's a great camera.

Also, I find Nikon's CLS (creative lighting system) and TTL systems to be outstanding.

I can set up four SB900's and have near limitless artistic expression when I am in doors. Battling the sun at high noon outdoors does limit you some what, but that's what big alien bee's are for! lol

 

[xBa380]

I have always been a Canon guy, so the answer is simple

I have evolved over the years from an XSI -> T1i -> 7D -> 7D + 5D -> 5D Mark II

Lenses are where 80% of your image quality come from. My lenses total about 75% more then the cost of my body all together. That is where you see differences. Nikon and Canon are both great systems, just go play with both at a Best Buy and chose (but buy it from B&H, Amazon or Adorama!).

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: xBa380


My lenses total about 75% more then the cost of my body all together. That is where you see differences. Nikon and Canon are both great systems, just go play with both at a Best Buy and chose (but buy it from B&H, Amazon or Adorama!).


75%? You got away cheap! I was going to say more like 750%!

I dont think there is anything worth seeing at best buy. Best is to go to a real camera shop, see some stuff, and ask them to match the big NYC stores. Often they will.

 

[xBa380]

Very true... My best buy usually has a decent enough selection to play around with the Nikon/Canon interfaces, menus, etc... And chose which you prefer. Then go online and buy it from a retailer for cheaper!

And yeah, lenses are everything. Putting a $2000 lens on a $400 SLR body would look better then a $200 lens on a $5000 body generally. Plus, lenses hold value extremely well if not go up in value. I can sell all my lenses more then what I paid.