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

[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. 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. ;-)

Derrel.. sheesh. Ok, again you forgot to give props to the guy using the D40. Your starting to hack his mom off buddy.. lol

 

[JerryLove]

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.

So far this year.

But if you are going to upgrade this year, then upgrade now. What will the environment be like next year or the year after?

The more I stewed on this question, the more I was unsure if I would indeed go Nikon or Canon on a new camera now. I don't doubt that the 3300 is a better camera than the T3i. But I prefer the Canon mount. I prefer the Canon interface (though perhaps because of more familiarity). I already know several cases where the Nikon seems to win out on specs, but as I got deeper I realized I'd rather have the Canon. Not all mind you; but enough to make me really want to get past listed specs as I decide.

MP above , well really 12, but let's say 18, aren't themselves a really big deal. What they might give you (like how they deal with moire patterns) does matter. Imagine Canon announces a T7i this month. Imagine it's got the anti-moire capabilities of the 5DmkIII, and the dual-pixel system of the 70D (and to a lesser extent the SL1, let's not forget what we've already seen Canon do on the low end). Those alone would be an interesting camera. Canon already tends to get focus faster.

Let's not forget that the extra pixels on the 70D convert from phase during AF to capture during capture. You actually have 2 sensors per pixel capturing. Many have commented positively on the [default] color rendition in Canon compared to Nikon. And though I lack the experience with the Nikon lenses to say "better" or "worse", I do really like the Canon lenses.

So yes. You are buying into an eco-system. As such, it might be worth it to look not only beyond the intro camera, but beyond year 1.

Both companies make excellent cameras. I believe, without knowing, that Nikon is better this year at the bottom end for most applications (though I suspect the SL1 wins in video); but I don't know if that's enough reason to chose one over the other.

I really suggest going down to a store and playing with both.

 

[robbins.photo]

So far this year.

But if you are going to upgrade this year, then upgrade now. What will the environment be like next year or the year after?

Well that is always the million dollar question I suppose - the only thing I can really base that on is what has transpired in the years before. The best indicator of what will be is what has already happened.

The more I stewed on this question, the more I was unsure if I would indeed go Nikon or Canon on a new camera now. I don't doubt that the 3300 is a better camera than the T3i. But I prefer the Canon mount. I prefer the Canon interface (though perhaps because of more familiarity). I already know several cases where the Nikon seems to win out on specs, but as I got deeper I realized I'd rather have the Canon. Not all mind you; but enough to make me really want to get past listed specs as I decide.

Certainly nothing wrong with that.

MP above , well really 12, but let's say 18, aren't themselves a really big deal. What they might give you (like how they deal with moire patterns) does matter. Imagine Canon announces a T7i this month. Imagine it's got the anti-moire capabilities of the 5DmkIII, and the dual-pixel system of the 70D (and to a lesser extent the SL1, let's not forget what we've already seen Canon do on the low end). Those alone would be an interesting camera. Canon already tends to get focus faster.

On this point I would disagree. I started my journey into digital photography with a 16 mp D5100, then later on upgraded to the 24 mp D5200. There is a noticeable difference in image quality and clarity even right off the camera, but more importantly the big difference comes in when you go to crop a photo. The 24 mp image gives me a lot more ability to crop and resize than the 16 mp did, and as a result I get a much better end results. Since I shoot a lot of telephoto of moving critters, for me this really made a huge difference.

Let's not forget that the extra pixels on the 70D convert from phase during AF to capture during capture. You actually have 2 sensors per pixel capturing. Many have commented positively on the [default] color rendition in Canon compared to Nikon. And though I lack the experience with the Nikon lenses to say "better" or "worse", I do really like the Canon lenses.

So yes. You are buying into an eco-system. As such, it might be worth it to look not only beyond the intro camera, but beyond year 1.

The 70d has some really great features, no doubt about it. But I guess my point is that in the sub $1000 range for Canon at least, there really isn't a big difference between the choices you have other than bells and whistles, such as touch screen, no touch screen, etc. They all use pretty much the same sensor so really if you want to step up in image quality, your looking at spending $1000 plus on the camera body. That and the low light performance in the bodies that cost less than $1000 is really fairly poor compared to most of their major competitors. Granted if you shoot in good lighting conditions that might not be as much of a concern so I can certainly see why people use Canon. But for me it was an important consideration.

Both companies make excellent cameras. I believe, without knowing, that Nikon is better this year at the bottom end for most applications (though I suspect the SL1 wins in video); but I don't know if that's enough reason to chose one over the other.

I think Canon has the edge in video. I evaluated my needs and thought about where I would like to be a few years from now, and for me at least buying a camera with the APS-C sensor makes the most sense. I don't really see myself needing the advantages of full frame any time in the near future, at least not to the point where I could justify the increased cost. So for me the Nikon system simply made more sense, I've got a lot of upgrade options in the less than $1000 range.

I really suggest going down to a store and playing with both.

Certainly can't hurt, though really not what I would want to base my decision on - I've been shooting Nikon for a while now but I have little doubt that if I picked up a Canon I could learn it's interface relatively quickly, and adjust to the slight variations in ergonomics. Again probably just how different people view these things a little differently.

 

[Hartbaby]

I thank you all for for replies! Is probably going to come down to a last minute decision as I feel both"Eco systems" have a lot to offer. I value hearing from those who have used each or that have experienced both! I just want to be able to enjoy the camera I choose and eventually grow with that system and expand my skills. Thanks all!

 

[JerryLove]

Well that is always the million dollar question I suppose - the only thing I can really base that on is what has transpired in the years before. The best indicator of what will be is what has already happened.

Agreed. I've not really researched, but I believe the two have leap-frogged each other over the decades. Is that inaccurate?

On this point I would disagree. I started my journey into digital photography with a 16 mp D5100, then later on upgraded to the 24 mp D5200. There is a noticeable difference in image quality and clarity even right off the camera, but more importantly the big difference comes in when you go to crop a photo. The 24 mp image gives me a lot more ability to crop and resize than the 16 mp did, and as a result I get a much better end results. Since I shoot a lot of telephoto of moving critters, for me this really made a huge difference.

I agree with you regarding cropping. I had thought I carved out that caviat, but perhaps not. For most printed images, 16MP has hit a point of, at best, rapidly diminishing returns at likely viewing distances.

Is the improvement from the 5100 to 5200 solely the result of pixel count? Can you separate the effect of pixel count from other sources? On non-cropped images, does this difference display itself in common print formats at usual viewing distances?

I went from 12MP to 18MP (and my 20 should arrive today). I can't see a resolution difference in my 5x7 prints with my naked eye.

The 70d has some really great features, no doubt about it. But I guess my point is that in the sub $1000 range for Canon at least, there really isn't a big difference between the choices you have other than bells and whistles, such as touch screen, no touch screen, etc.

And the phase-sensors in the CMOS on the SL1, but I get your point.

Is there a lot of difference between the Nikons in the sub-$1k new category?

That and the low light performance in the bodies that cost less than $1000 is really fairly poor compared to most of their major competitors. Granted if you shoot in good lighting conditions that might not be as much of a concern so I can certainly see why people use Canon. But for me it was an important consideration.

It would be for me to. The reason I've ordered the Canon 6D is because of its lowlight performance. That could be a make-or-break feature for me in a Nikon / Canon decision. It's a good point.

 

[robbins.photo]

I agree with you regarding cropping. I had thought I carved out that caviat, but perhaps not. For most printed images, 16MP has hit a point of, at best, rapidly diminishing returns at likely viewing distances.

You may have carved it out and I may have missed it. On occasion I'll be reading these while working on other projects so I don't always catch some of the more subtle details the way I should

Is the improvement from the 5100 to 5200 solely the result of pixel count? Can you separate the effect of pixel count from other sources? On non-cropped images, does this difference display itself in common print formats at usual viewing distances?

I went from 12MP to 18MP (and my 20 should arrive today). I can't see a resolution difference in my 5x7 prints with my naked eye.

I can't really speak to prints as I haven't really gone down that road yet, I mostly just view things on a computer monitor - but for me at least I can see a very noticeable difference in image quality and clarity even when viewing them on smaller screens like my tablet.

And the phase-sensors in the CMOS on the SL1, but I get your point.

There are a lot of options in the sub $1000 range, the 3x series, the 5x series and the 7x series are all available for less than $1000 (though the D7100 is right around $1000), so you've got your choices between either a 16 mp sensor or 24 mp sensor in each series, and a lot of different options between the series themselves as far as external controls, articulating screen, etc. It gives you a lot of options for cameras under $1000, and what I consider to be more upgrade options than what you get from Canon.

It would be for me to. The reason I've ordered the Canon 6D is because of its lowlight performance. That could be a make-or-break feature for me in a Nikon / Canon decision. It's a good point.

Once you get into the full frame cameras the differences between low light performance are not quite as dramatic as they are in the APS-C lineup. In APS-C the Nikons have much better low light performance, in part because of their better high iso/low noise ratio and in part due to their better dynamic range. Once you start getting in the full frames though generally the Nikons still have better lowlight performance, but the differences aren't as huge as they are in the APS-C category.

The 6d vrs a D600 for example, the D600 has about a 0.3 Fstop advantage in high iso/low noise ratings. But when you compare my $500 D5200 to a brand new top of the line 70d, even though my camera costs roughly half what the 70d costs I still have a 0.5 Fstop advantage in high iso to low noise. Place my D5200 against a T4I and that jumps to 0.8 Fstops. When you combine that with the greater dynamic range of the D5200 and the difference really starts to stack up fast when shooting in low light. So really for the APS-C shooter I think Nikon offers a much better system if your primary concern is still images and particularly if low light shooting is an area of concern.

 

[unpopular]

If they're both basically the same, I'd look more closely at what cameras you might want to eventually upgrade to. Because I'm more interested in the D800 and D3 than 5/6d or 1d, I personally would consider going with the nikon route, but that's just me. Consider what is your most likely future path (dream cameras, etc), and go from there.