T3i vs. D3100 OR 60D vs. D7000

[PhilD41]

So, my hobby fund has finally made it to the point where I can consider upgrading my my P&S to a DSLR. This is a wonderful thing, but also very tiring! After all, I have no history and no glass so which route do I take. I will try to give you the run down of what I am looking at and am simply looking for opinions and information to make a wise start in my slightly more advanced photography hobby. So, here it is:

Amount available to spend - $1000 to $1500 (I can always be patient if I need a little more)

Camera Class Debate - I realize that with this price point I could look at two different classes of cameras. I had originally assumed that I would look at the Canon T2i (now T3i) or Nikon D3100. I realize I could squeak into a Canon 60D or Nikon D7000 with just a little effort. I am not sure if the extra features is worth it starting off though.

Camera Debate - Basically what is above. The Canon T3i vs. Nikon D3100 or the Canon 60D vs. Nikon D7000.

What I do - I don't attempt to make money off of my photography, at least not yet. It is purely a hobby. I have lived for almost 4 years now with a Canon S5IS and have done okay. (www.deanstudios.net) The things that drive me nuts is the very poor low light performance, slow response time, and of course lack of raw. I have four kids under 5 years of age. I am looking for a camera that will allow me to take indoor photos without flash (in most cases), good action shots (read: higher fps continuous) and longevity. I don't expect I will be replacing my camera body every few years to have the latest and greatest. I would expect what I buy now to last > 8 years.

I will add to this that I do a fair amount of video as well. Even my S5IS has replaced my DV camcorder for short kids videos to share with family. All of these do 1080 HD but the Canons have slightly higher frame rates. I am not sure if that would make much difference or not.

Questions I have - I have always heard that the Nikkor glass is better than Canons, however it is also more expensive. I don't know that I need the best of the best but realize this will be a long term decision. To that end, I have also looked at the Pentax K-5 but given its price, don't know that it gains me much over the more popular brands above. I expect to use the kit lens (18-55mm or 18-135mm ish?) for a while, then eventually add a 50mm prime and then a larger zoom. I would also like to add an flash at some point.

What are your all's thoughts on buying used? I know most cameras boast a 100,000 shutter life which I expect very few push. There is something about having a nice new piece of hardware to play with. I also realize that I will most likely not find the newer models used.

Anyway I could ramble on for a while. I guess my main debate is:

• Do I get the lower end camera and possibly a few more, or better, accessories.
• Do I get the higher end camera and have more features while adding the accessories later.
• Last, the whole Canon / Nikon / Other debate. I realize there are professionals and amateurs alike that swear by both.

So you know, I have plans to stop by and play with all the cameras extensively before choosing. I am just curious what you would do in this situation. :-)

- Philip

[inkista]

Originally Posted by PhilD41

... I would expect what I buy now to last > 8 years. ...

Wow. How long do your computers and cellphones last in your household? Because dSLRs are now digital electronics. Unlike the old mechanical-only film SLRs that you can still shoot with after decades, dSLRs have a lot more than can go wrong with them, aside from just the shutterbox dying after 100k clicks.

I'd actually have said 3-5 years would be more reasonable, myself, and I'm a late adopter who holds on to her computers like grim death for four generations.

[Thunder_o_b]

I would dispute that Nikon is sharper than Canon, and Sigma makes lenses that are as sharp and sharper than both, see my shots with the 150mm f2.8 macro and the MP-E 65. Buy the camera that feels best in your hands. Take a look at the Canon 50D, all the shots that I have been posting were taken with that camera. It was discontinued a couple of days ago and the price is really good.

Just my $.02 worth

[PhilD41]

Originally Posted by inkista

Wow. How long do your computers and cellphones last in your household? Because dSLRs are now digital electronics. Unlike the old mechanical-only film SLRs that you can still shoot with after decades, dSLRs have a lot more than can go wrong with them, aside from just the shutterbox dying after 100k clicks.

I'd actually have said 3-5 years would be more reasonable, myself, and I'm a late adopter who holds on to her computers like grim death for four generations.

Well, computers usually last 5 years. But like I said, I buy older tech, build my own and run linux so I get a little more out of them. I would expect 8 to be a fair number buying new. I realize there is a lot to go wrong in the modern camera, but I still expect the majority mistreated last 10+ years. There is a big difference between wanting to upgrade and the camera not performing. I may want to upgrade sooner then than, but I am not planning on it. I have a lot to learn with an advanced DSLR and I expect it might just take that long to get a good start. :-)

Originally Posted by Thunder_o_b

I would dispute that Nikon is sharper than Canon, and Sigma makes lenses that are as sharp and sharper than both, see my shots with the 150mm f2.8 macro and the MP-E 65. Buy the camera that feels best in your hands. Take a look at the Canon 50D, all the shots that I have been posting were taken with that camera. It was discontinued a couple of days ago and the price is really good.

Just my $.02 worth

Agreed! I have taken some pretty nice shots with my S5IS as well. I realize both cameras and lenses have pros and cons and different companies shine in different areas. That was a generalization I have heard in many places. I am just trying to understand the long term plan before spending this type of money on a hobby. I appreciate your $.02.

[RichardTaylor]

I would not get one of the entry level camera, at least in the Canon line as the XD & XXD have much better erganomics and are actually easier to use..

From personal experience I would buy good straight up.

Both Canon & Nikon are good systems.
Try them both out in a store and see which one feels better to use for you and which looks, better, through the viewfinder. to you.

As far as accessories go you don't really need much to begin with beside spare batteries/memory cards, lens hood,Polarising filter, possibly a UV filter if shooting in "dirty environments, and an external flash down the track.

Also camera performance, especially fast accurate focussing, also depends on what lenses you are using.
Indoor photography without flash means high ISO and fast lenses (not a kit lens) so be sure to budget for one.

As far as budget goes keep in mind you are buying into a complete system si do the numbers. Depending how far you want to take your photography you may find yourself spending 4-5 times the amount, on lenses, you paid for your camera body (I did)

[jml79]

JMHO

T3i over D3100 or D5000. The T3i uses a newer sensor that is used in both the 60D and the 7D, the Nikon's use lower res/older sensors than a D7000. The D3xxx/D5xxx can only use some of Nikons current lenses (no 50mm f/1.8 AF-S currently) where the T3i can use any EOS lens since the mid 80's(AFAIK).

As far as the D7000 vs 60D I am tossed. The D7000 has more features but after playing with both I remain tossed. I prefer the handling of the 60D over the D7000 but I want a more advanced AF sytsem than the 60D has.

Ref. Lenses, all makers have some great glass at the high end and it depends on what you can afford. A top of the line Tamron may be better for the price than a mid level Canon or Nikon even if some Canon/Nikon lenses might be much sharper. I guess what I am saying is that you will only benefit from those super sharp lenses if you are willing to shell out for them. For lens quality be realistic about what you can afford and might buy. For me a 50mm 1.8 is a better buy than a 1.4. It leaves me some money to put towards a new zoom.

[Thunder_o_b]

jml makes a good point in the lenses. I would also add the greater the number of pixels the better lens you must have, the greatest weakness in the cameras to day are the limits of the lenses because of the high power sensors. A low quality lens really shows it with an 18mp camera where it will not be as noticeable in an 8mp camera. I have a 50D (15mp) and love it, but will be the first to say my wife's 40D (10 mp) takes a better picture before pp. I also have a kit lens from an older T2, and it is junk on the 50D.

[PhilD41]

Thank you so much for your input. It has been very helpful. You guys and gals are an amazing wealth of knowledge.

So, after playing with the two cameras for a while (I will several more times before this is done) I am leaning heavily to the Nikon D7000. I think it be the best for what I will do most often. I also like the idea of having the more advanced camera from the start. I have spent the last 2 years frustrated with the limitations of my camera. I don't want to end up in the exact same place in 2 more years and wanting to upgrade again. Yes, I realize I might anyway, but I see this level of camera as a longer term purchase. Also weighing on my slant is the fact that I know more people with Nikon cameras and I have a larger wealth of knowledge available and potentially lenses, depending on how good of friends they are.

Speaking of lenses, I have also be thinking of avoiding the camera kit. The kit comes with the body and the Nikkor 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 VR (if memory serves). Right now, for the same price, I can get the body and the Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR lens. I would then pick up a 18-55 zoom sometime soon if needed (I have seen them refurbished online for ~$100). Since I am coming from the world of P&S the lenses are one of the things I know the least about. I would love to hear your thoughts on this idea.

Thanks!

[Thunder_o_b]

Originally Posted by PhilD41

Thank you so much for your input. It has been very helpful. You guys and gals are an amazing wealth of knowledge.

So, after playing with the two cameras for a while (I will several more times before this is done) I am leaning heavily to the Nikon D7000. I think it be the best for what I will do most often. I also like the idea of having the more advanced camera from the start. I have spent the last 2 years frustrated with the limitations of my camera. I don't want to end up in the exact same place in 2 more years and wanting to upgrade again. Yes, I realize I might anyway, but I see this level of camera as a longer term purchase. Also weighing on my slant is the fact that I know more people with Nikon cameras and I have a larger wealth of knowledge available and potentially lenses, depending on how good of friends they are.

Speaking of lenses, I have also be thinking of avoiding the camera kit. The kit comes with the body and the Nikkor 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 VR (if memory serves). Right now, for the same price, I can get the body and the Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR lens. I would then pick up a 18-55 zoom sometime soon if needed (I have seen them refurbished online for ~$100). Since I am coming from the world of P&S the lenses are one of the things I know the least about. I would love to hear your thoughts on this idea.

Thanks!

I have never had the opportunity to pick up a refurbished lens (yet) but my understanding is if picked-up from a reputable dealer like B+H or Adoroma, it is a better buy than a new one, not for the savings which is not much, but rather because each one is bench tested and adjusted by hand.

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by PhilD41

Speaking of lenses, I have also be thinking of avoiding the camera kit. The kit comes with the body and the Nikkor 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 VR (if memory serves). Right now, for the same price, I can get the body and the Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR lens. I would then pick up a 18-55 zoom sometime soon if needed (I have seen them refurbished online for ~$100). Since I am coming from the world of P&S the lenses are one of the things I know the least about. I would love to hear your thoughts on this idea.

Most likely an 18-105 f/3.5-5.6 VR actually

What lenses you choose depends greatly on what you want to shoot. A 70-300 VR is a wonderful lens, but almost useless if all you're doing is landscape work (though I *have* used mine for just that). On the other hand, if you're trying to get photos of insects or birds, then an 18-105 or 18-55 isn't going to help either.

What are your plans with your subject matter?