Looking to buy my first DSLR

[AaronLLockhart]

Hehe, If I didn't seek help from here, I would have definitely bought Nikon D3200 or Nikon D5100, but now I think, I made a better decision.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Because if you're comparing the cameras feature to feature, you made the bad decision:

Canon T3i vs Nikon D5100 - Our Analysis

In fact, even the D5000 (my camera, and one model generation older than the D5100 and T3i) has a 10% better image quality, 1 f-stop more dynamic range, more color depth, and higher ISO performance than the Canon Rebel T3i. So, if you ask me, the T3i is a TERRIBLE choice, as the D5100 is a much better camera than mine.

You will find that, in almost all of Canon's entry level line up, that Nikon's comparable model reigns over their camera solution as far as feature set and specifications are concerned.

 

[Sarmad]

Hehe, If I didn't seek help from here, I would have definitely bought Nikon D3200 or Nikon D5100, but now I think, I made a better decision.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Because if you're comparing the cameras feature to feature, you made the bad decision:

Canon T3i vs Nikon D5100 - Our Analysis

In fact, even the D5000 (my camera, and one model generation older than the D5100 and T3i) has a 10% better image quality, 1 f-stop more dynamic range, more color depth, and higher ISO performance than the Canon Rebel T3i. So, if you ask me, the T3i is a TERRIBLE choice, as the D5100 is a much better camera than mine.

You will find that, in almost all of Canon's entry level line up, that Nikon's comparable model reigns over their camera solution as far as feature set and specifications are concerned.

Woot.... By that Canon T3i is just terrible,
One thing, does Nikon D5100 allows us to manual focus during the video?
Now I'm talking about Bokeh again, but as I've never used a DSLR, Can we do sweet creamy Bokeh with D5100 as we can with T3i?
Also guys, Are Nikon D7000 and Canon 650 good choices? Or I should stick to D5100 If I'm a beginner?
Thanks to Aaron once again for opening my eyes and Aaron, take a look here

 

[pixmedic]

Hehe, If I didn't seek help from here, I would have definitely bought Nikon D3200 or Nikon D5100, but now I think, I made a better decision.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Because if you're comparing the cameras feature to feature, you made the bad decision:

Canon T3i vs Nikon D5100 - Our Analysis

In fact, even the D5000 (my camera, and one model generation older than the D5100 and T3i) has a 10% better image quality, 1 f-stop more dynamic range, more color depth, and higher ISO performance than the Canon Rebel T3i. So, if you ask me, the T3i is a TERRIBLE choice, as the D5100 is a much better camera than mine.

You will find that, in almost all of Canon's entry level line up, that Nikon's comparable model reigns over their camera solution as far as feature set and specifications are concerned.

Woot.... By that Canon T3i is just terrible,
One thing, does Nikon D5100 allows us to manual focus during the video?
Now I'm talking about Bokeh again, but as I've never used a DSLR, Can we do sweet creamy Bokeh with D5100 as we can with T3i?
Also guys, Are Nikon D7000 and Canon 650 good choices? Or I should stick to D5100 If I'm a beginner?
Thanks to Aaron once again for opening my eyes and Aaron, take a look here

View attachment 18604

seriously?
im going to just go ahead and let you take a mulligan on that one.
first, Bokeh is more about the lens, not the camera. I can get sweet creamy bokeh on my OLD D100 and 50mm 1.4 lens.
secondly, GO TO A STORE and try these cameras if you haven't already! no online reviews, surveys, or forum suggestions will replace a good old fashioned "try it out yourself" trip. you've already read the reviews, the forum suggestions, and the online comparisons. now go pick them up and see for yourself which ones you like the best. find a good camera store where you can ask questions about each one. THEN, you can buy a camera. or order it online. or whatever.

 

[AaronLLockhart]

...and Aaron, take a look here

You're comparing two product brands that compete with each other for first and second place in the market share. Canon currently leading, it's easy to see why that poll you've got there is so evenly matched. However, think about this for a second. Canon leads the dSLR market share currently by almost 10% over Nikon. You're looking at a poll where the votes are dead even, and Nikon is at a 10% popularity disadvantage. Think real hard, because on that notion alone, you can tell that the nikon owners are more satisfied... because there are less Nikon owners, and the same amount of votes.

Not only do I think this from the gathered info, but JD Power & Associates did a market share summary at the end of the year of 2011, and MORE Nikon owners were happy with their camera purchase and camera reliability than Canon owners.

In other words, If you want a camera that's all hyped up and really popular because everyone's buying them, go ahead and buy the inferior T3i. However, if you want a camera you are going to be satisfied with in the long run, which has better tech in it, the 5100 is definitely the smarter route to go.

According to the statistics, don't you agree?

Which DSLR camera brand is the best? | francoisMalan

 

[belial]

You're comparing two product brands that compete with each other for first and second place in the market share. Canon currently leading, it's easy to see why that poll you've got there is so evenly matched. However, think about this for a second. Canon leads the dSLR market share currently by almost 10% over Nikon. You're looking at a poll where the votes are dead even, and Nikon is at a 10% popularity disadvantage. Think real hard, because on that notion alone, you can tell that the nikon owners are more satisfied... because there are less Nikon owners, and the same amount of votes.

Not only do I think this from the gathered info, but JD Power & Associates did a market share summary at the end of the year of 2011, and MORE Nikon owners were happy with their camera purchase and camera reliability than Canon owners.

In other words, If you want a camera that's all hyped up and really popular because everyone's buying them, go ahead and buy the inferior T3i. However, if you want a camera you are going to be satisfied with in the long run, which has better tech in it, the 5100 is definitely the smarter route to go.

According to the statistics, don't you agree?

Which DSLR camera brand is the best? | francoisMalan

Fan boi. Camera stats don't matter that much anyways. Lens selection does. Canon shooters have way more lens choices because we can run canon and Nikon with no quality loss. Paper stats don't mean much anyways. But what lenses you can run surely does.

 

[pixmedic]

You're comparing two product brands that compete with each other for first and second place in the market share. Canon currently leading, it's easy to see why that poll you've got there is so evenly matched. However, think about this for a second. Canon leads the dSLR market share currently by almost 10% over Nikon. You're looking at a poll where the votes are dead even, and Nikon is at a 10% popularity disadvantage. Think real hard, because on that notion alone, you can tell that the nikon owners are more satisfied... because there are less Nikon owners, and the same amount of votes.

Not only do I think this from the gathered info, but JD Power & Associates did a market share summary at the end of the year of 2011, and MORE Nikon owners were happy with their camera purchase and camera reliability than Canon owners.

In other words, If you want a camera that's all hyped up and really popular because everyone's buying them, go ahead and buy the inferior T3i. However, if you want a camera you are going to be satisfied with in the long run, which has better tech in it, the 5100 is definitely the smarter route to go.

According to the statistics, don't you agree?

Which DSLR camera brand is the best? | francoisMalan

Fan boi. Camera stats don't matter that much anyways. Lens selection does. Canon shooters have way more lens choices because we can run canon and Nikon with no quality loss. Paper stats don't mean much anyways. But what lenses you can run surely does.

that's because Nikon lenses are soooo good, we don't WANT to use canon lenses. I guess Canon thinks so too since there's an adapter to mount nikon lenses on a canon camera. :mrgreen:
(PLEASE people, try not to miss the sarcastic tone of my typing)

 

[belial]

that's because Nikon lenses are soooo good, we don't WANT to use canon lenses. I guess Canon thinks so too since there's an adapter to mount nikon lenses on a canon camera. :mrgreen:
(PLEASE people, try not to miss the sarcastic tone of my typing)

Lol. I caught it. Just for argument the mpe 65 comes to mind. A lens many Nikon shooters would love that Nikon has nothing to match. To tell the truth I like both systems and both have their pluses and minuses. What I don't like is someone calling someone else's system inferior. The "my camera can beat your camera up" argument is tired

 

[AaronLLockhart]

Fan boi. Camera stats don't matter that much anyways. Lens selection does. Canon shooters have way more lens choices because we can run canon and Nikon with no quality loss. Paper stats don't mean much anyways. But what lenses you can run surely does.

You might want to read up on your facts a bit more. In the case of the D5100 vs the T3i, the Nikon has a bigger lens selection at 169 available lenses versus 162 with the t3i.

In every single aspect of this thread, the canon proves inferior. Now, we might talk differences when the t4i is released. However, right now the 5100 takes the lead in every way.

***edit***
Just saw your nikon lens on canon statement. I'm talking comparable equipment. Not crossing gear.

Also, my last post had nothing to do with hardware stats. It was a consumer report generated from the annual buying patterns of the equipment and feedback on the owner's happiness in purchase and the reliability of the product.

Canon got it in more units sold, but Nikon reigned over in customer satisfaction and reliability.

 

[TCampbell]

Fan boi. Camera stats don't matter that much anyways. Lens selection does. Canon shooters have way more lens choices because we can run canon and Nikon with no quality loss. Paper stats don't mean much anyways. But what lenses you can run surely does.

You might want to read up on your facts a bit more. In the case of the D5100 vs the T3i, the Nikon has a bigger lens selection at 169 available lenses versus 162 with the t3i.

In every single aspect of this thread, the canon proves inferior. Now, we might talk differences when the t4i is released. However, right now the 5100 takes the lead in every way.

***edit***
Just saw your nikon lens on canon statement. I'm talking comparable equipment. Not crossing gear.

Also, my last poll had nothing to do with hardware stats. It was a consumer report generated from the annual buying patterns of the equipment and feedback on the owner's happiness in purchase and the reliability of the product.

Canon got it in more units sold, but Nikon reigned over in customer satisfaction and reliability.

When I first responded to this thread, I neglected to mention brands. That wasn't an omission. It was deliberate.

I did that because, frankly, the brand simply does not matter. What matters is the properties of the lens to produce the results the OP asked about. If you want bokeh, this is a way to ensure you'll get it -- but you'll need a lens with the right attributes. Frankly you can get that lens from lots of different makers... again... brand isn't specifically important here.

You're turning this into a "my camera is better than your camera" debate -- which is fairly pointless. The debate is much like the Ford vs. Chevy, and Coke vs. Pepsi debate. In the end, you'll find fans lining up for both sides, but you can't necessarily claim that based on objective information one of them is clearly "better."

You made the fairly outrageous comment that "In every single aspect of this thread, the canon proves inferior." That's pretty much a zealous "fanboy" comment that erodes credibility.

Incidentally, the Canon T4i is released... it's been shipping for a while now. It even has a product recall (apparently the rubber grips on the body can discolor in a limited batch where the rubber wasn't correctly mixed.)

If you want to be credible, be objective. Neither Canon nor Nikon are clearly "better" than the others.

As for lens selection, of the currently marketed lenses, they both have roughly 70 lenses (give or take). Not 160+... to get to that you'd have to count lenses no longer made or 3rd party lenses, etc. Not very realistic. If you really wanted claim any lens that can fit on a camera counts as a lens, then you'd have to add all Nikons lenses to the Canons. This is because Nikon lenses are engineered to require a longer back-focus distance than Canon and Canon has a shorter flange-to-focal plane distance. That means it's possible to put in an adapter on a Canon that lets you mount a Nikon lens and it'll come to focus. You can't do the reverse to a Nikon... you'd have to mill out the flange on the front of the body to recess the lens. I don't recommend swapping lenses regardless of whether it's possible or not -- the reality is that people should probably be looking at lenses made to work on the camera they have.

Another thing to keep in mind is that Nikon has a lot of over-lap in their lens line as they convert from AF to AF-S. There are still quite a number of these. It's been a while since I did a comparison but at last count I thought it was 22 lenses. You probably would never buy a Nikon 50mm f/1.8 AF-S lens and then ALSO buy the 50mm f/1.8 AF lens. There would be little point in that.

Canon never had to do a conversion from in-body focus motors to in-lens focus motors. All Canon auto-focusing lenses use in-lens motors and always have. This means that of the lenses currently available from both companies, Canon actually has significantly more "unique" lenses (lenses that are completely different... not merely a variant design of another lens.)

When you go to a respected review site, you'll find that neither company is the clear winner at anything... it's always a game of give & take. Nikon will win in one aspect, Canon will win in another. Neither company even really has a majority. When you look at what pro shooters buy, you'll find there's no bias there either... it's not like the vast majority of pros migrate to one brand over another.

You shouldn't be buying based on brand... buy based on what fits your needs.

 

[AaronLLockhart]

When I first responded to this thread, I neglected to mention brands. That wasn't an omission. It was deliberate.

I did that because, frankly, the brand simply does not matter. What matters is the properties of the lens to produce the results the OP asked about. If you want bokeh, this is a way to ensure you'll get it -- but you'll need a lens with the right attributes. Frankly you can get that lens from lots of different makers... again... brand isn't specifically important here.

You're turning this into a "my camera is better than your camera" debate -- which is fairly pointless. The debate is much like the Ford vs. Chevy, and Coke vs. Pepsi debate. In the end, you'll find fans lining up for both sides, but you can't necessarily claim that based on objective information one of them is clearly "better."

You made the fairly outrageous comment that "In every single aspect of this thread, the canon proves inferior." That's pretty much a zealous "fanboy" comment that erodes credibility.

Incidentally, the Canon T4i is released... it's been shipping for a while now. It even has a product recall (apparently the rubber grips on the body can discolor in a limited batch where the rubber wasn't correctly mixed.)

If you want to be credible, be objective. Neither Canon nor Nikon are clearly "better" than the others.

As for lens selection, of the currently marketed lenses, they both have roughly 70 lenses (give or take). Not 160+... to get to that you'd have to count lenses no longer made or 3rd party lenses, etc. Not very realistic. If you really wanted claim any lens that can fit on a camera counts as a lens, then you'd have to add all Nikons lenses to the Canons. This is because Nikon lenses are engineered to require a longer back-focus distance than Canon and Canon has a shorter flange-to-focal plane distance. That means it's possible to put in an adapter on a Canon that lets you mount a Nikon lens and it'll come to focus. You can't do the reverse to a Nikon... you'd have to mill out the flange on the front of the body to recess the lens. I don't recommend swapping lenses regardless of whether it's possible or not -- the reality is that people should probably be looking at lenses made to work on the camera they have.

Another thing to keep in mind is that Nikon has a lot of over-lap in their lens line as they convert from AF to AF-S. There are still quite a number of these. It's been a while since I did a comparison but at last count I thought it was 22 lenses. You probably would never buy a Nikon 50mm f/1.8 AF-S lens and then ALSO buy the 50mm f/1.8 AF lens. There would be little point in that.

Canon never had to do a conversion from in-body focus motors to in-lens focus motors. All Canon auto-focusing lenses use in-lens motors and always have. This means that of the lenses currently available from both companies, Canon actually has significantly more "unique" lenses (lenses that are completely different... not merely a variant design of another lens.)

When you go to a respected review site, you'll find that neither company is the clear winner at anything... it's always a game of give & take. Nikon will win in one aspect, Canon will win in another. Neither company even really has a majority. When you look at what pro shooters buy, you'll find there's no bias there either... it's not like the vast majority of pros migrate to one brand over another.

You shouldn't be buying based on brand... buy based on what fits your needs.

I never made it about brand. This is a case specific basis. For it to have been a fanboy statement I would have said "Nikon is better than canon."

However that's not what I said. I said THE Nikon is better than THE canon. As in the d5100 is better than the t3i... Which it is.

Also if you truly thing that the lens is the only thing that makes the camera, then why don't you sell your camera and buy a d40, d50, or a canon rebel xs and just forget about cameras such as the 60D and D7000, since the lens is all that matters and all. The lens makes a difference, yes. However, there is also a HUGE difference between my d40 and my D5000 with the same lens... So it's not about just the lens.

 

[rokvi]

Fan boi. Camera stats don't matter that much anyways. Lens selection does. Canon shooters have way more lens choices because we can run canon and Nikon with no quality loss. Paper stats don't mean much anyways. But what lenses you can run surely does.

You might want to read up on your facts a bit more. In the case of the D5100 vs the T3i, the Nikon has a bigger lens selection at 169 available lenses versus 162 with the t3i.

In every single aspect of this thread, the canon proves inferior. Now, we might talk differences when the t4i is released. However, right now the 5100 takes the lead in every way.

***edit***
Just saw your nikon lens on canon statement. I'm talking comparable equipment. Not crossing gear.

Also, my last poll had nothing to do with hardware stats. It was a consumer report generated from the annual buying patterns of the equipment and feedback on the owner's happiness in purchase and the reliability of the product.

Canon got it in more units sold, but Nikon reigned over in customer satisfaction and reliability.

When I first responded to this thread, I neglected to mention brands. That wasn't an omission. It was deliberate.

I did that because, frankly, the brand simply does not matter. What matters is the properties of the lens to produce the results the OP asked about. If you want bokeh, this is a way to ensure you'll get it -- but you'll need a lens with the right attributes. Frankly you can get that lens from lots of different makers... again... brand isn't specifically important here.

You're turning this into a "my camera is better than your camera" debate -- which is fairly pointless. The debate is much like the Ford vs. Chevy, and Coke vs. Pepsi debate. In the end, you'll find fans lining up for both sides, but you can't necessarily claim that based on objective information one of them is clearly "better."

You made the fairly outrageous comment that "In every single aspect of this thread, the canon proves inferior." That's pretty much a zealous "fanboy" comment that erodes credibility.

Incidentally, the Canon T4i is released... it's been shipping for a while now. It even has a product recall (apparently the rubber grips on the body can discolor in a limited batch where the rubber wasn't correctly mixed.)

If you want to be credible, be objective. Neither Canon nor Nikon are clearly "better" than the others.

As for lens selection, of the currently marketed lenses, they both have roughly 70 lenses (give or take). Not 160+... to get to that you'd have to count lenses no longer made or 3rd party lenses, etc. Not very realistic. If you really wanted claim any lens that can fit on a camera counts as a lens, then you'd have to add all Nikons lenses to the Canons. This is because Nikon lenses are engineered to require a longer back-focus distance than Canon and Canon has a shorter flange-to-focal plane distance. That means it's possible to put in an adapter on a Canon that lets you mount a Nikon lens and it'll come to focus. You can't do the reverse to a Nikon... you'd have to mill out the flange on the front of the body to recess the lens. I don't recommend swapping lenses regardless of whether it's possible or not -- the reality is that people should probably be looking at lenses made to work on the camera they have.

Another thing to keep in mind is that Nikon has a lot of over-lap in their lens line as they convert from AF to AF-S. There are still quite a number of these. It's been a while since I did a comparison but at last count I thought it was 22 lenses. You probably would never buy a Nikon 50mm f/1.8 AF-S lens and then ALSO buy the 50mm f/1.8 AF lens. There would be little point in that.

Canon never had to do a conversion from in-body focus motors to in-lens focus motors. All Canon auto-focusing lenses use in-lens motors and always have. This means that of the lenses currently available from both companies, Canon actually has significantly more "unique" lenses (lenses that are completely different... not merely a variant design of another lens.)

When you go to a respected review site, you'll find that neither company is the clear winner at anything... it's always a game of give & take. Nikon will win in one aspect, Canon will win in another. Neither company even really has a majority. When you look at what pro shooters buy, you'll find there's no bias there either... it's not like the vast majority of pros migrate to one brand over another.

You shouldn't be buying based on brand... buy based on what fits your needs.

I always listen when you talk. :mrgreen:

 

[TCampbell]

I never made it about brand. This is a case specific basis. For it to have been a fanboy statement I would have said "Nikon is better than canon."

However that's not what I said. I said THE Nikon is better than THE canon. As in the d5100 is better than the t3i... Which it is.

Also if you truly thing that the lens is the only thing that makes the camera, then why don't you sell your camera and buy a d40, d50, or a canon rebel xs and just forget about cameras such as the 60D and D7000, since the lens is all that matters and all. The lens makes a difference, yes. However, there is also a HUGE difference between my d40 and my D5000 with the same lens... So it's not about just the lens.

They don't make a D40 or D50 or XS anymore. As you go back through the older models, you'll find the ISO range decreases and the noise levels at high ISOs increases. If you're shooting a "Sunny 16" photo, they all do a fabulous job -- there's plenty of light, they can shoot at ISO 100, and you need precise scientific measuring equipment to notice the noise level difference from body to body.

When you get into poor lighting situations (I like to do concerts) the cameras are at the limits of what they can handle on ISO. A camera that maxes out at ISO 1600 wont be much use. A camera that maxes out at ISO 3200 can work but there will be a lot of noise.

Today, just about everything goes to ISO 6400 (at least) without even activating the "extended" ISO modes (where even the manufacturers realize it's a stretch.) When someone asks for camera buying advice, I only look at models currently manufactured and sold (unless they asked for advice on "used" bodies.) And in the currently manufactured models, a person really needs to be shooting on the fringes of what a camera can handle before the body makes a difference (and often that becomes a game of what you can afford.)

However... a good photographer with a Canon Rebel XS absolutely can compete in image quality with what a good photographer with, say, a Canon 1Ds III can do -- as long the shooting conditions aren't challenging (on the fringes of ISO limits or stops of dynamic range, etc.) I am routinely impressed with what photographers turn out using older camera bodies.

In the order of what influences photo quality, I'd rank the list this way:

1. The Photographer: Their skill and experience, both technically and artistically. I don't know how to play piano or violin. Buying a Steinway or Strativarius probably isn't going to improve my outcome unless I do something about my skill level. There is no substitute for skill and practice.
2. The lighting: Both the lighting conditions and/or the equipment available to change the lighting (which also ties into the photographer's skill to control lighting as much as possible.)
3. The lens: This also ties into #1, but assuming the photographer knows how to exploit the lens, a lens offering better focal ratios, resolution, contrast, aperture blades, etc. can pinch the difference.
4. The camera body: I put this in last place. It's not that it isn't important. A good camera will not make a bad photographer better. But a bad camera can hold a good photographer back. It's difficult to see a difference in cameras when shooting conditions are favorable. Mostly the body makes a difference when the shooting conditions start pressing the limits of what a camera can handle (e.g. low light shots where a high ISO is required, or shots with a large dynamic range, etc.) You can think of these as "corner cases" that maybe the average photographer wont run into as often (low-light / high-ISO is fairly common though. If I had a nickel for everyone who asked about camera buying advice so they could take "natural light" indoor shots of their toddlers who wont sit still... or their kids high-school indoor sports game. You try to tell them they'll need a lens with a low focal ratio and yet they want the 18-270mm f/4-6.3 zoom... <sigh>)

I'll point out to people that 1/3rd stop of dynamic range isn't much when you're haggling over shooting with an 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens (f/5.6 at 50mm) because you don't want to buy the f/2.8 zoom or the f/1.8 prime that collects between 4 and 10 times as much light... and here they are arguing over 1/3rd stop on the body. This is why I emphasize the LENS over the BODY.

I can give you examples where the D5100 isn't so attractive but as my whole point is to state that we shouldn't have a bias to the brand of body, I'd prefer to keep the discussion to the needs of the photographer and the suitability of the many products which can meet those needs.

I prefer both Nikon and Canon alike BECAUSE they're both excellent bodies and they're both made by stable companies. I place everyone else a tier or two down for other reasons. Olympus is financially less viable and was recently rocked by what appears to be (based on news reports) financial scandals as well... if one feels that an important attribute of their camera would be that the company is still in the industry five years from now, then I'd hesitate to buy an Olympus. Pentax is now a brand of Ricoh. They make a solid product using the Sony sensor and offer some nice features, but they don't have the broad support enjoyed by Canon & Nikon. Still, they're not a bad product nor a failed product (and I wouldn't thumb my nose at a Pentax 645D if one was offered to me.) I just don't think they compete with the stability and strength of Nikon & Canon. Then you have Sony... the company that used to dominate much of the consumer electronics company and fell from grace (mostly when they became more interested in their media departments such as Sony Pictures and Sony Music and started deliberately crippling their products because "you might try to use it to steal our stuff".) Now they've bought Minolta and are trying to make a go in the photography business by offering non-traditional approaches to otherwise well though-out designs. Apple takes non-traditional approaches to to otherwise well thought-out designs by actually OUT-THINKING the well thought-out design. Apple is "cool". They're products are amazing. Sony... not so much. More of a "let's throw lots of features in hoping to seem cool even if the features are a bit awkward." I tried to like Sony... I really did. I was a bit disappointed with the a35 and a55 but had high hopes for the a77... but it was really just more of the same.

In the end, to me, it boils down to both Nikon and Canon. It's not practical to buy both. You have to make a decision. But I really don't think you'd be disappointed with either. They both make amazing products, have an excellent lens selection (yes, Canon has more "unique" lenses but that's not important. You're not _really_ going to buy one of every lens they make... you really only care about whether they make the 3 or 4... or maybe 10 lenses that you'll ever own in your life. The answer is yes... yes they do.)

 

[AaronLLockhart]

They don't make a D40 or D50 or XS anymore. As you go back through the older models, you'll find the ISO range decreases and the noise levels at high ISOs increases. If you're shooting a "Sunny 16" photo, they all do a fabulous job -- there's plenty of light, they can shoot at ISO 100, and you need precise scientific measuring equipment to notice the noise level difference from body to body.

When you get into poor lighting situations (I like to do concerts) the cameras are at the limits of what they can handle on ISO. A camera that maxes out at ISO 1600 wont be much use. A camera that maxes out at ISO 3200 can work but there will be a lot of noise.

Today, just about everything goes to ISO 6400 (at least) without even activating the "extended" ISO modes (where even the manufacturers realize it's a stretch.) When someone asks for camera buying advice, I only look at models currently manufactured and sold (unless they asked for advice on "used" bodies.) And in the currently manufactured models, a person really needs to be shooting on the fringes of what a camera can handle before the body makes a difference (and often that becomes a game of what you can afford.)

However... a good photographer with a Canon Rebel XS absolutely can compete in image quality with what a good photographer with, say, a Canon 1Ds III can do -- as long the shooting conditions aren't challenging (on the fringes of ISO limits or stops of dynamic range, etc.) I am routinely impressed with what photographers turn out using older camera bodies.

In the order of what influences photo quality, I'd rank the list this way:


[*]The Photographer: Their skill and experience, both technically and artistically. I don't know how to play piano or violin. Buying a Steinway or Strativarius probably isn't going to improve my outcome unless I do something about my skill level. There is no substitute for skill and practice.
[*]The lighting: Both the lighting conditions and/or the equipment available to change the lighting (which also ties into the photographer's skill to control lighting as much as possible.)
[*]The lens: This also ties into #1, but assuming the photographer knows how to exploit the lens, a lens offering better focal ratios, resolution, contrast, aperture blades, etc. can pinch the difference.
[*]The camera body: I put this in last place. It's not that it isn't important. A good camera will not make a bad photographer better. But a bad camera can hold a good photographer back. It's difficult to see a difference in cameras when shooting conditions are favorable. Mostly the body makes a difference when the shooting conditions start pressing the limits of what a camera can handle (e.g. low light shots where a high ISO is required, or shots with a large dynamic range, etc.) You can think of these as "corner cases" that maybe the average photographer wont run into as often (low-light / high-ISO is fairly common though. If I had a nickel for everyone who asked about camera buying advice so they could take "natural light" indoor shots of their toddlers who wont sit still... or their kids high-school indoor sports game. You try to tell them they'll need a lens with a low focal ratio and yet they want the 18-270mm f/4-6.3 zoom... <sigh>)


I'll point out to people that 1/3rd stop of dynamic range isn't much when you're haggling over shooting with an 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens (f/5.6 at 50mm) because you don't want to buy the f/2.8 zoom or the f/1.8 prime that collects between 4 and 10 times as much light... and here they are arguing over 1/3rd stop on the body. This is why I emphasize the LENS over the BODY.

I can give you examples where the D5100 isn't so attractive but as my whole point is to state that we shouldn't have a bias to the brand of body, I'd prefer to keep the discussion to the needs of the photographer and the suitability of the many products which can meet those needs.

I prefer both Nikon and Canon alike BECAUSE they're both excellent bodies and they're both made by stable companies. I place everyone else a tier or two down for other reasons. Olympus is financially less viable and was recently rocked by what appears to be (based on news reports) financial scandals as well... if one feels that an important attribute of their camera would be that the company is still in the industry five years from now, then I'd hesitate to buy an Olympus. Pentax is now a brand of Ricoh. They make a solid product using the Sony sensor and offer some nice features, but they don't have the broad support enjoyed by Canon & Nikon. Still, they're not a bad product nor a failed product (and I wouldn't thumb my nose at a Pentax 645D if one was offered to me.) I just don't think they compete with the stability and strength of Nikon & Canon. Then you have Sony... the company that used to dominate much of the consumer electronics company and fell from grace (mostly when they became more interested in their media departments such as Sony Pictures and Sony Music and started deliberately crippling their products because "you might try to use it to steal our stuff".) Now they've bought Minolta and are trying to make a go in the photography business by offering non-traditional approaches to otherwise well though-out designs. Apple takes non-traditional approaches to to otherwise well thought-out designs by actually OUT-THINKING the well thought-out design. Apple is "cool". They're products are amazing. Sony... not so much. More of a "let's throw lots of features in hoping to seem cool even if the features are a bit awkward." I tried to like Sony... I really did. I was a bit disappointed with the a35 and a55 but had high hopes for the a77... but it was really just more of the same.

In the end, to me, it boils down to both Nikon and Canon. It's not practical to buy both. You have to make a decision. But I really don't think you'd be disappointed with either. They both make amazing products, have an excellent lens selection (yes, Canon has more "unique" lenses but that's not important. You're not _really_ going to buy one of every lens they make... you really only care about whether they make the 3 or 4... or maybe 10 lenses that you'll ever own in your life. The answer is yes... yes they do.)

There are many parts of this that I agree with, and many parts that I do not agree with.

1. I know they don't make those cameras anymore, I own one of them.

2. You're confusing image quality with composition quality along with a mixture of great post processing. You can only take a picture to the limits of your hardware. That's not to say that you are "limited by your equipment," but rather to emphasize that the tech in my d40 is very old compared to my d5k and no matter what lens you put on it, it isn't going to produce the in camera (no processing) results of my d5k. The same as my d5k is not capable of producing the in camera results of a d4. Any good photographer can take a great image with any camera, however that doesn't mean the IQ is comparable to higher end cameras.

3. As for your musician comparison. Let's relate this to guitars, since it's something I am very familiar with and can understand. You won't find a famous guitar player using an off brand knock off from Walmart, but rather an Ibanez or better. The reason is because the tech in an Ibanez is much better than the tech in the knock off. From the pickups to the frets, everything is better on an Ibanez. The guitar player is only going to be limited to the sound the equipment will transmit, even if he's an outstanding guitar player. It won't be as clear, crisp, or clean. Once again, if the body of the camera didn't make a huge difference, everyone would own a d40 and rebel XS's because they are dirt cheap, and all they would have to do is get a good lens. There would be absolutely no purpose in owning anything like a D7000 or a T4i.

 

[jrizal]

While the thread is now about the merits of each major camera brand, the discussion fails to discuss that selecting a first DSLR is also about "marrying into" a system. Now let's limit the camera choices to the D5100 and T3i. There are a lot of reviews that indicate that IQ wise the winner is the D5100, others would argue that the T3i wins. But there are other factors as well. Take for example the case of Nikon and Canon in my native Philippines. Canon has a subsidiary which will provide full support for any Canon product wherever it was purchased. Nikon on the other has does not have a subsidiary and relies on third party distributors. Downside here is that there is no support for Nikon products if it were purchased elsewhere. Let's say you bought a Nikon in Hong Kong dirt cheap. If it conks out, then you don't have warranty and worse it won't be repaired by the authorized distributors even if you are willing to pay for the cost of repair leaving you no choice to look for someone who is willing to repair your gear. Also, available accessories should also be considered. Lenses for one are expensive and during the years to come, you would eventually like to upgrade, definitely you wound want to use your previous lenses. The models being considered by the OP are the T3i and the D5100, and at a practical (and newbie) perspective, IQ IMO would not make a significant dent in the purchase decision as these two cameras are head on. I would also consider not only lens availability (as if I would purchase +150 lenses) but other accessories as well such as grips (either original or third party - the D5100 doesn't have an original grip, batteries third party or original, etc.) Do note that DSLR photography is not cheap even for the most basic setup and not everyone has the means to purchase complicated setup. I do understand the arguments being discussed here but I believe it makes the OP "over analyze" his purchase decision. I have a D3100 but I am enamored with the T3i rather than the D5100 due to other factors, IQ for me would be more or less the same with my trained eyes. If I were the OP, I would consider my budget and the support of both manufacturers in his native country. Again, the T3i & D5100 and rock solid entry level DSLRs each having its own pros and cons. (And please let's not argue with the 60D/D7000 and full frames in this thread. ) My two cents' worth. For the OP happy camera hunting!