Canon T3i or Nikon d3100

[BethanyY]

Hello! I am Beth and I am new to the forums here.

I took photography classes in school when I was much younger (30 now...old I know ). I am looking to get back into it and possibly make it a career. I am mainly looking to do portraits and nudes. I eventually want to get to the point of wedding photography etc....but understand I will more than likely upgrade to a much nicer camera by then.

I understand that my first DSLR purchase will be a big descision because it starts a relationship with a brand. I have looked long and hard and been to every review site imaginable and what I had come up with in my price range was a Canon T3i or a D3100.

Out of all of the reviews I got that the T3i has a built in focus motor a flip screen that is high res...more mega pixels but a smaller sensor.

The D3100 is said to have comparable if not slightly better image quality for $300 or so less and Nikon glass is typically reviewed to be better.

Sorry I know I was rambling...(I tend to do that)....here is the real question.

So which do you think is a better bet?? I know this canon vs nikon things seems to have been done a lot...but I dont care as much about the brands at this point as performance between these 2 entry-level dslrs.

My thoughts...I am leaning more towards the Nikon. I do not mind manually focusing if I chose to buy a nice cheap prime lens. It also seems to have more beginner friendly menus etc... The Canon's screen while nice is not needed and the image quality difference and I love the cheaper price...I would like to hear a few opinions/counter-arguments before I make the purchase. Thank you so much in advance for your help!!!!

[RichardTaylor]

Welcome to DPS and the forums.

What feels better in your hands, and looks better through the viewfinder to you?

That will give you an idea beside looking at specs.

[BethanyY]

Originally Posted by RichardTaylor

Welcome to DPS and the forums.

What feels better in your hands, and looks better through the viewfinder to you?

That will give you an idea beside looking at specs.

I know...and I have seen this gets said a lot. I went to the local photography store and I like them both...I really don't mind either. I believe I am one of those people that loves the differences and tactile feelings of different objects so I have a hard time seeing one better than the other...honestly the only bias I have looking between the 2 is the company name...I like the sound of Nikon better than Canon...but that doesn't really matter lol

[oldwolf]

If the flip out screen doesn't matter then have you looked at just the T2i body and getting better glass (lens)?

[BethanyY]

Originally Posted by oldwolf

If the flip out screen doesn't matter then have you looked at just the T2i body and getting better glass (lens)?

I have...Body only the T2i is still more expensive than the d3100 which comes with a kit lens....and while it isn't much more ($100 or so )...It is enough to make me think I would rather either pay the extra $200 and get the T3i with the better features and lens or get the d3100 which is said to have a little better image quality and use the saved money for a prime lens....I just see so many more Canon users out there that it make me hesitant that I am missing something in my comparison since I am just now getting back into this.

[inkista]

Three tiny doesn't-really-matter-to-you features the T3i also has over the D3100: DoF preview button, true mirror lock-up, and the ability to perform stop-down metering with manual lenses.

Look to the glass. The differences between the the two bodies aren't so huge. The differences between the two mount systems is slightly larger, and may be more of a guide to which one you'll like better overall, when you think about future expansion of the system.

Nikon's flash system has more features than Canon's. Nikon's wide-angle glass typically beast Canon's. Nikon offers a 5 year warranty on lenses vs. Canon's single year warranty. But Canon's lenses sometimes have cheaper mid-range alternates where Nikon only offers entry and pro, particularly when it comes to longer focal lengths. If you want to shoot with fast primes, few of the Nikon ones are AF-S, but most of Canon's are USM, and you don't need USM to achieve autofocus.

Compare the macro lens options if you plan to shoot macro.
Compare the fisheye lens options if you plan to use a fisheye.
Compare the tilt-shift options if you're an architecture/landscape shooter.
Compare the wide angle if you're a landscape shooter.
Compare the fast primes for portraits.
Compare the telephoto zooms for sports and wildlife.

I shoot birds in flight handheld. I own a Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM for this purpose, and it fulfills my needs admirably. It cost me $1100. On the Nikon side of the fence, the only 400mm prime lens is an f/2.8 VR and it costs $9000 (Canon's 400/2.8L IS USM is $7600). And the 80-400 VR, which costs roughly the same as the EF 100-400L IS USM, is not AF-S. AF-S/USM matters if you need fast autofocus for quick-moving subject matter.

Similarly, when recommending a lens for low-light/action shooting, such as stage or indoor sports for shooters on a budget, I point folks to the EF 85mm f/1.8 USM. It's about $450. On the Nikon side of the fence, the 85mm f/1.8D is not AF-S. And the AF-S 85/1.4G is a substantially different and more expensive lens, more like Canon's EF 85mm f/1.2L USM.

But Canon shooters have nothing like the Nikkor 10.5mm f/2.8 fisheye for crop, the legendary 14-24 ultrawide for full-frame or the $200 AF-S 35mm f/1.8 as a normal on crop. And we can't use the old manual focus Canon FD-mount lenses directly on dSLR bodies, while Nikon users have the whole of the Ai-and-later F-mount available to them without adapters.*

What do you want to shoot? What lenses are you going to be going for?

I'm not sure where you're getting the opinion that all Nikon lenses are better than all Canon lenses. Each lineup has its own weak and strong spots, and lenses are individual things, which are best compared one to one. Blanket statements that all lenses from X are better/cheaper/sharper tend to be wrong somewhere down the line simply from over generalizing. Partisan arguing can be awfully overexaggerated. Look at sample images. A lot of times, if you're not told, it's going to be tough to tell which system was used to take a picture, let alone which lens.

The main point I'm trying to make here, is that you're not out to find which system is the best one. You're just not. You're looking to see which system is the best fit for you, what you shoot, and the budget you can spend on camera gear (hence all those "how it feels in your hands" deals. The ergonomics of the two systems are relatively different. Menu organization and layout in particular). Think of it like clothes shopping: what works for someone else may not be what works for you.

---

*with adapters, 'nother story. Most folks don't go there. If you want more info on this, see here.

[BethanyY]

Originally Posted by inkista

Three tiny doesn't-really-matter-to-you features the T3i also has over the D3100: DoF preview button, true mirror lock-up, and the ability to perform stop-down metering with manual lenses.

Look to the glass. The differences between the the two bodies aren't so huge. The differences between the two mount systems is slightly larger, and may be more of a guide to which one you'll like better overall, when you think about future expansion of the system.

Nikon's flash system has more features than Canon's. Nikon's wide-angle glass typically beast Canon's. Nikon offers a 5 year warranty on lenses vs. Canon's single year warranty. But Canon's lenses sometimes have cheaper mid-range alternates where Nikon only offers entry and pro, particularly when it comes to longer focal lengths. If you want to shoot with fast primes, few of the Nikon ones are AF-S, but most of Canon's are USM, and you don't need USM to achieve autofocus.

Compare the macro lens options if you plan to shoot macro.
Compare the fisheye lens options if you plan to use a fisheye.
Compare the tilt-shift options if you're an architecture/landscape shooter.
Compare the wide angle if you're a landscape shooter.
Compare the fast primes for portraits.
Compare the telephoto zooms for sports and wildlife.

I shoot birds in flight handheld. I own a Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM for this purpose, and it fulfills my needs admirably. It cost me $1100. On the Nikon side of the fence, the only 400mm prime lens is an f/2.8 VR and it costs $9000 (Canon's 400/2.8L IS USM is $7600). And the 80-400 VR, which costs roughly the same as the EF 100-400L IS USM, is not AF-S. AF-S/USM matters if you need fast autofocus for quick-moving subject matter.

Similarly, when recommending a lens for low-light/action shooting, such as stage or indoor sports for shooters on a budget, I point folks to the EF 85mm f/1.8 USM. It's about $450. On the Nikon side of the fence, the 85mm f/1.8D is not AF-S. And the AF-S 85/1.4G is a substantially different and more expensive lens, more like Canon's EF 85mm f/1.2L USM.

But Canon shooters have nothing like the Nikkor 10.5mm f/2.8 fisheye for crop, the legendary 14-24 ultrawide for full-frame or the $200 AF-S 35mm f/1.8 as a normal on crop. And we can't use the old manual focus Canon FD-mount lenses directly on dSLR bodies, while Nikon users have the whole of the Ai-and-later F-mount available to them without adapters.*

What do you want to shoot? What lenses are you going to be going for?

I'm not sure where you're getting the opinion that all Nikon lenses are better than all Canon lenses. Each lineup has its own weak and strong spots, and lenses are individual things, which are best compared one to one. Blanket statements that all lenses from X are better/cheaper/sharper tend to be wrong somewhere down the line simply from over generalizing. Partisan arguing can be awfully overexaggerated. Look at sample images. A lot of times, if you're not told, it's going to be tough to tell which system was used to take a picture, let alone which lens.

The main point I'm trying to make here, is that you're not out to find which system is the best one. You're just not. You're looking to see which system is the best fit for you, what you shoot, and the budget you can spend on camera gear (hence all those "how it feels in your hands" deals. The ergonomics of the two systems are relatively different. Menu organization and layout in particular). Think of it like clothes shopping: what works for someone else may not be what works for you.

---

*with adapters, 'nother story. Most folks don't go there. If you want more info on this, see here.

Yay ty ty ty this is exactly the kind of response I was hoping for...The glass thing I read on a couple sites that Nikon Glass was a little more consistent...and reviewed better...not a huge deal but something I heard and I take most review wth a grain of salt anyway.
The truth of the matter is...like I said before...the only bias I have is with the name sounding better lol which really doesn't matter...

The problem I am running into...more and more...is most reviews I have seen...including a lot of the "this camera vs this camera" compare the stats like mega pixels, sensor size, it doesn't have a focus motor, etc..and leave out the stuff like DoF preview button, true mirror lock-up, and the ability to perform stop-down metering with manual lenses.

The cheaper better image quality was the only reason I was looking towards the Nikon d3100 but wanted counterarguments in-case I missed things.
I want to do mainly portrait photography and perhaps wedding in the future...by the time I am at Wedding level I would imagine I would step up to the pro-tier DSLRs or at the very least a d7000.
For portraits I dont mind sticking with the kit lens at first and maybe eventually getting a cheap Prime 50mm or 85mm lens and manually focusing with a Nikon until I can upgrade to the lens I would want for weddings etc... A Nice 24-70mm f/2.8L Zoom Lens and 70-200mm f/2.8G etc...$1500 or so on both ends it seems so it will be a while of saving and learning before that.

sorry I know I ramble lol I will try and get to a better point

...I would perhaps like to hear from people that do portraits if saving the money and going with the cheaper entry level DSLR (d3100) with the same image quality (from Reviews) would be a better option if I know what lenses I want and understand I will have to upgrade before I go pro?
Or should I spend the extra $300 to perhaps save a little on the 85mm prime in the future and get the more features the T3i has?

Which is more worth it knowing exactly where I am heading? Again..thank you in advance for any more help you can give me.

[mike_terror]

Bethany! I'm currently in the same boat as you were.

Please update us on which camera you decided on getting!! and what are your initial thoughts and experience, I'd love to hear them.

I'm also on the fence about which camp to jump on, Canon or Nikon, and I've also read through as much forum postings and articles and videos as possible!!

Currently trying to decide between Canon T3i (600d) or the Nikon D5100 or Nikon D90!

[I shoot Nikon]

I was looking to update my D40 and decided to go with the d3100 after reading more reviews and comments than I can count. Having only shot Nikon and been happy in the past, I remained brand-loyal and I'm glad I did...THIS CAMERA ROCKS. Very user-friendly for the beginner (me)...I would highly recommend it!

[candleman]

based on the specs.. I'd take the T3i
Personally wouldn't waste time on Nikon for anything less than a D90
but, it also depends on how it feels in your hands.