d3100 or t2i?

[senorpyz]

I am hoping to buy a camera soon. I just started photography, and I've been using my dad's old 35mm Minolta X-700.

Should I get a Nikon D3100 or a Canon EOS Rebel T2i?

I know the D3100 has a larger sensor, better color depth, and continuous focusing for videos, but the T2i has a higher fps, better maximum light sensitivity, and a built in focusing motor. Plus, the T2i has a microphone jack for video.

The D3100 is cheaper though.

I'll be doing more pictures than video. So, video isn't very important, but I could see it being handy.

I heard canon lenses are cheaper?


Which one should I go with?

Thanks!

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by senorpyz

I know the D3100 has a larger sensor


I heard canon lenses are cheaper?

RE: Sensor size:
While Nikon DX is slightly larger than Canon APS-C, it's not much.
D3100: 23.1mm x 15.4mm
T2i: 22.3mm x 14.9mm

So, .8mm wider and .5mm taller. Not a huge difference.

There is a difference in resolution: 14mp and 18mp. That's enough to be considered.

RE: Canon lenses being cheaper:
Some are, some arent. It really depends on what you're looking for. In some cases, as well, the lenses from one manufacturer will be of better quality then those of the other.

[mattdm]

Have you been enjoying the X-700? What lenses are you using with it?

[mattdm]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

There is a difference in resolution: 14mp and 18mp. That's enough to be considered.

About a quarter more pixels. In a lot of conditions, you won't be able to tell the difference in actual detail even though the files are 25% bigger. If you're taking a lot of tripod-mounted pictures in good lighting, it's a plus.

[OsmosisStudios]

I hardly think conditions have anything to do with how resolution is perceived. An 18MP shot is simply bigger than a 14mp shot, and if youre buying a camera outright, then that's something big enough to consider. If the OP were looking at UPGRADING from 14 to 18, then I'd agree: that's not enough for an upgrade. But for a first-time purchase? That's a big enough change to be a factor.

OP: Have you tried using both the D3100 an the T2i? if not, find a store with both and try them both out. You may find that one is easier for you to use than the other.

[mattdm]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

I hardly think conditions have anything to do with how resolution is perceived.

Sure they do. If you're shooting at high ISO or at a longer shutter speed hand-held, you're probably not getting enough detail in either case to make the increased resolution give you any actual more information.

[inkista]

Originally Posted by senorpyz

Which one should I go with?

What do you want to shoot?

Both of these bodies are terrific, and you'll get your money's worth (this is true of all entry-level dSLR bodies, actually). But remember. A digital camera doesn't last as long as a film one. Digital electronics simply wear out faster and go "obsolete" faster in folks' minds. Talk to almost anyone with a dSLR these days, and you will likely find they're not on their first body any more. Folks swap and upgrade their dSLR bodies much as they do their computers (or even their cellphones). This is transitory electronics--to be replaced with something better as the upgrade urge or breakdowns and financial opportunities occur.

The more perrnanent purchase is going to be in the lenses. So what do you want to shoot? And which lens lineup is going to suit you best is one question you may want to consider. Your lenses can be used (mostly) from body to body. That's why Matt asked about the X-700. The Sony Alphas are using the Minolta AF mount. If you have all the lenses you need for the X-700, it may make going with a Sony Alpha a better path than either Canon or Nikon, because you won't have to buy any lenses.

When you buy the camera body, you're going to be "locked" into a mount system. Canon and Nikon lenses don't fit each others' cameras. And which lenses are cheaper are specific one-by-one cases. The generalities people tend to make is that Canon is stronger on the telephoto end of the range, while Nikon is better at the wide angle. And--with an entry level body (i.e., a Nikon without a focus motor), the only fast primes on the Nikon side that are <$500 that autofocus are the 50/1.4 and the 35/1.8. Does that matter to you?

Well, it depends on what you want to shoot. Landscapes tend to sit still and wait for you to focus. So do folks posing for a portrait. Sports and wildlife, not so much. So what you want to shoot is also going to determine what gear you want to go for. As well as how you envision shooting. If you're only going to shoot out in the daytime with bright sunshine, you may not need a fast prime. You can use a zoom which will autofocus.

The reason most folks will recommend you go either Nikon or Canon is because they have the largest systems with the most market share. So if you don't know what you want to do, you've got the most upgrade paths available to you.

I'd recommend taking a quick spin through this guide on lenses, just so you can get a feel for what's out there and why you might want it, and then hit the websites and see what lenses are offered in which mounts. It'll be information overload. But the lens is the other half of your camera.

[senorpyz]

Thanks for the input so far guys.

I actually have quite a few lenses for the X-700 (50mm, 70-200mm, 28mm, 135mm, and i think a few others).

I know the Alphas can use the Minolta lenses but are the Alphas as good as a Canon or Nikon?

Also, all of the lenses I have aren't autofocus lenses, so that would mean no auto-focus when im taking pictures with a Sony right?

As far as what I will be shooting, I have been mainly shooting with a 50mm. However, I plan on shooting some of my friends' sports events. Also, I hope to be a photographer at a camp this summer. Which would mean taking pictures of a bunch of kids running around which would mean a telephoto. I can't picture myself doing too many landscapes. So from what you guys are saying, I should look at the Canon because they have better telephoto?

[senorpyz]

I just looked at the Sony a55 compared to the T2i

it has 10 fps vs. 3.7 fps

12800 max ISO vs 6400 max ISO

it has image stabilization vs. none

it has a gps

2 card slots instead of 1

a slightly bigger sensor

why does nobody buy sony?

[inkista]

Originally Posted by senorpyz

...why does nobody buy sony?

Because a lot of us already have a ton of Canon or Nikon glass? Also, if Sony's weak in one area, it's in high iso noise performance which gets undue emphasis in most online dSLR reviews. As I said above, nearly any entry level dSLR these days is going to be good.

Frankly, the main reason Sony isn't a newbie choice is because if you know camera brands, you know that Sony isn't one of them, and a lot of folks don't know that Sony basically purchased Minolta's camera know-how. Also, Canon and Nikon are the market share leaders: so more choices, more availability, more third party support.

That doesn't mean it's not worthwhile to look at Sony, Pentax, or Olympus if their products will suit you. Sony is probably the third brand to be considered simply because they're the only other dSLR maker right now that offers full frame bodies as a possible upgrade path. In fact, Sony supplied the sensors for Nikon's full frame bodies.

One problem, however, with Sony is that they have proprietary mindthink to a higher degree. Think Sony "memory sticks." Then throw in that Minolta hotshoe. :eyeroll:

Oh crap. Sorry I got your hopes up. I'm not familiar with Minolta cameras, and didn't realize the X-700 was a manual focus SLR. You are screwed. The Minolta MD/MC lenses can't be used on Alphas (just like Canon FD/FL lenses can't be used on the digital EOS cameras). The only mount that could easily be adapted for the lenses you've got now is micro four-thirds, which has a 2x crop factor. Sorry!