Help/Opinions? My First DSLR: Canon T3i vs. Nikon D3100?

[Hartbaby]

Hello all,

This is my first post in the forum. I am currently looking into getting my first DSLR as an upgrade from a point and shoot. Id like to become a photography hobbiest in my spare time. I was wondering from all of you, what is the better camera: Canon T3i or the Nikon D3100? I have NO allegience to either brand so I am open to go with either one. I do not want to spend more than $500, as I am not buying this camera to shoot professionally. I will be shooting nature/landscapes, photos of my baby boy, and pets/animals/birds etc. Basically, I would like to know what is the best value for the money out of these two cameras as well as any drawbacks from one to the other? I have read many reviews and cant come to a conclusion on either camera (I would even consider the Nikon D3200 if it far outweighs these other two). Any help and suggestions would be greatly appreciated! If there is a link in the forum already covering this topic, point me in that direction. Thank you in advance!

 

[KmH]

Both are basic entry-level DSLR's that have, for all intents and purposes, equal performance.

IMO Nikon offers slightly more in the way of nuance features, functions, performance, and ergonomics to recommend Nikon over Canon.
For example - the D3100 has color aware light metering - the T3i doesn't, but for your purposes that is a nuance that won't matter much to you.

Here is some info that shows the image sensor in each camera has pretty much the same performance, though the D3100 has a sliver of a lead in low light performance - http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-600D-versus-Nikon-D3100___692_664

 

[IronMaskDuval]

Don't listen to KmH. Canons are dirty. Always shoot Nikon.

 

[IronMaskDuval]

In all seriousness, I don't think you'd be unhappy with either one, including the 3200. You can never really see what all the camera can do until you get good optics anyway. My very first camera was a D3000, and I kept it up until two days ago. Here are a couple of images taken with the D3000 and the 18-55 kit lens. It's not the best composition, but you get the point.

 

[Derrel]

Both are basic entry-level DSLR's that have, for all intents and purposes, equal performance.

IMO Nikon offers slightly more in the way of nuance features, functions, performance, and ergonomics to recommend Nikon over Canon.
For example - the D3100 has color aware light metering - the T3i doesn't, but for your purposes that is a nuance that won't matter much to you.

Here is some info that shows the image sensor in each camera has pretty much the same performance, though the D3100 has a sliver of a lead in low light performance - Canon EOS 600D versus Nikon D3100 - Side by side camera comparison - DxOMark

I would SKIP the older, outdated sensors in bothy the T3i and the D3100, and go styraight to the newest, best model, the D3300. Look at the SUBSTANTIAL improvement in the DxO Mark scores on sensor performance with the D3300. With the Canon T3i, you're using an old, outdated sensor developed in 2008... the D3300 has a MUCH newer and significantly BETTER sensor. Better color, better dynamic range, and better High ISO performance, as well as higher-specification video, and a faster-firing shutter.

Nikon D3300 versus Canon EOS 600D versus Nikon D3100 - Side by side camera comparison - DxOMark

 

[hirejn]

Brand is mostly a matter of which tool you like better. Features are also mostly a matter of personal preference. You have to try them to find out which you like better. As light recording tools, all DSLRs are capable of recording amazing images. Remember the camera is just a tool that records what you tell it to; it doesn't make good or bad images. If you don't know how to do something, equipment won't change that. Once you know how to make a good picture, even an entry-level DSLR can do well.

 

[TheNevadanStig]

If I had $500, I would go with the D3200. Actually that was my budget and I did go with the D3200, and have been extremely happy. It's significantly better than the D3100, and worth the extra. The only major difference as far as I know is that the D3300 is 25% lighter than the D3200, so to me it wasn't worth $200 or so for the D3300.

 

[IronMaskDuval]

Well, in another thread, there's a used 5200 on KEH for $499 with a 18-55. I think that's a better bet. It comes with a warranty for 6 months, so you have a safety net.

 

[Derrel]

Brand is mostly a matter of which tool you like better. Features are also mostly a matter of personal preference. You have to try them to find out which you like better. As light recording tools, all DSLRs are capable of recording amazing images. Remember the camera is just a tool that records what you tell it to; it doesn't make good or bad images. If you don't know how to do something, equipment won't change that. Once you know how to make a good picture, even an entry-level DSLR can do well.

This is why all the top pros shoot the Nikon D3100. At the Olympics, at press events, at Hollywood red carpet events, and in war zones, the Canon T3i and Nikon D3100 are the tools people rely on, along with 18-55 f/3.5~5.6 kit zooms, and for the big-lens stuff, the plastic-barreled 55-200mm f/4.5~5.6 lenses have the reach and the speed to take on any task. ;-)

 

[robbins.photo]

Brand is mostly a matter of which tool you like better. Features are also mostly a matter of personal preference. You have to try them to find out which you like better. As light recording tools, all DSLRs are capable of recording amazing images. Remember the camera is just a tool that records what you tell it to; it doesn't make good or bad images. If you don't know how to do something, equipment won't change that. Once you know how to make a good picture, even an entry-level DSLR can do well.

This is why all the top pros shoot the Nikon D3100.

Well no, not all the top pros. There is that one guy who's using a D40. I guess his mom just stone cold refuses to upgrade. But most of them, ya.. D3100.. lol

 

[Derrel]

I've noticed over the past 30 years that people who tell beginners that student-level cameras and entry-level lenses are "plenty good enough" almost always own really GOOD equipment. I noticed that wayyy back in the pre-internet 1970's and 1980's and 1990's; it was common in the mid- to late-1990's when Usenet rec.photo groups were king; and it has continued today through the era of the www, and now into the Social Media era.

My take is that even beginners and intermediate shooters, when I have gone out shooting with other people since the 1980's, and have loaned them a pro-level lens, or pro-capable camera, that they typically almost INSTANTLY notice the huge gulf in performance and capabilities between "consumer" gear, and higher-end gear.

My feeling is that the beginner and intermediate-level shooters get MORE BENEFIT from better equipment, relatively speaking, than do seasoned, experienced shooters. As in my other decades-long passionate area,salmon and steelhead fishing, I think that beginners benefit the most from being set up with high-level gear, and not economy grade stuff.

 

[sonicbuffalo]

I can save you some money with my D5100 and lens that I have for sale....great camera...I just upgraded to the D7100.

 

[JerryLove]

Not to side with the anti-Canon league; but if I didn't have glass, and was interested in entry level, it's hard to argue in favor of the T3i. It's an excellent camera to be sure, but on most counts, the Nikon is doing better (it's newer).

Canon's recent cameras are the T3 (which seems uninteresting), the 70D (with its revolutionary 50% of pixels as phase sensors thing), and the 6D with its terrific low-light focusing; and before that the 5DmkIII. But beyond that we are well into 2012, and tech does change rapidly.

Of course: another option still is the EOS M which can be had with an excellent kit lens, and an EF adapter, for <$400.

There seems to be an expectation of some new cameras from Canon to be announced this month (presumably a 7D mk II among them). I'm excited to see.

 

[ReInvented2012]

I wanted to reply since I was new to this hobby just over a year ago before I got my Canon t3i. All of my flickr photos were taken with the kit lens, so if you are happy with what you see go with the Canon. Remember I am an amateur like you, so I am sure some of these could have been tweaked a bit. Its a simple camera, and with a good book on the camera you will be shooting a wide range of scenes in no time. Enjoy.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/120011773@N02/

I hope that link works. Peace!

 

[robbins.photo]

Not to side with the anti-Canon league; but if I didn't have glass, and was interested in entry level, it's hard to argue in favor of the T3i. It's an excellent camera to be sure, but on most counts, the Nikon is doing better (it's newer).

Canon's recent cameras are the T3 (which seems uninteresting), the 70D (with its revolutionary 50% of pixels as phase sensors thing), and the 6D with its terrific low-light focusing; and before that the 5DmkIII. But beyond that we are well into 2012, and tech does change rapidly.

Of course: another option still is the EOS M which can be had with an excellent kit lens, and an EF adapter, for <$400.

There seems to be an expectation of some new cameras from Canon to be announced this month (presumably a 7D mk II among them). I'm excited to see.

Well actually it's not all that tough to argue against a T3i. Not a member of the anti-canon league - ok, in the interest of full disclosure I did fill out an app but they sent me a message back saying they weren't really hiring at the moment but they would keep my application on file.

But in all seriousness the thing to consider is that your not just buying a camera, your buying into a camera system. Once you buy that first body and a lens or two your really better off staying with that brand rather than having to sell everything off and start from scratch with another brand.

Now if video is an important thing to you, or if you are looking at spending $1000 and up on your camera body, then I wouldn't hesitate to talk about Canon as a viable option. But lets face it, when it comes to APS-C and your interested in still pictures, then I truly believe Nikon is the better option as far as systems are concerned.

Ok, I know that will most likely upset some of the Canon folks out there - but hear me out. If start with the Nikon and I purchase say a D3100 - well I've got a ton of upgrade options in the APS-C arena that will dramatically improve my image quality at quite a few different price points. i could upgrade to a D3200 and get the 24 mp sensor and a big step up in image quality. I can step up to say a 5200 and get 24 mp sensor and a lot of other bells and whistles for around $500, or I can go D7000 and get more pro features but with a 16 mp sensor as opposed to the 24, or if I want to spend some real money I can go D7100 and get both.

If however I purchase a T3I, really the only way to get any better image quality out of my system my only real option is to either go with the 70d, or all the way up to full frame - both of which are going to run a grand or more. Sure, I can go T4i or T5i and get some extra bells and whistles, but the image quality remains basically unchanged until the 70d.

Ok, now for you Canon folks, if this sort of upgrade path is ok for you or you chose Canon based on a specific feature set offered by a specific camera, hey great. Nothing wrong with that at all. But for me when I looked at not only the camera I as buying now but also considered the camera I'd most likely be wanting next, Nikon came out the clear winner by offering an affordable upgrade path within their system. The other big consideration for me was lowlight abilities, and while Canon certainly does a better job with video and some of them have some really nice features, the truth is the lowlight abilities on the Canon's is really poor by comparison until you go full frame. Their APS-C lineup just can't compete in this arena because the do use a pretty dated sensor.

The one real advantage Canon has other than video is in the 40d/50d/60d/70d lineup they do have larger buffers than the Nikon, which equates to faster shooting speed for longer duration. That can be an important consideration in sports/wildlife shooting. But the rebel line up, the T3I in particular, only starts out with a 3.7 FPS shooting speed so it really can't lay claim to that advantage.

Ok, I will toddle off now and keep my fingers crossed that this doesn't start a Nikon vrs Canon debate, which is not my intent.