EOS 550D or D3100?

[ikur]

We have a Sony DSC-H9 and we really want to upgrade to either a Canon EOS550D or D3100 (within our budget). We are amateurs in photography, so we feel that it is about time we invested in some proper gear!

In most stores, the EOS 550D comes with the basic 18-55 IS lens BUT with additional EF 75-300 III and 50mm 1.8 lens kit. It also comes with the Value kit (16GB SD card + Case + Tripod [I dont know if it will be the flimsy one] + Cleaning Kit + DSLR Tutorial CD) all for around $1089/£692. Are the provided lens kits any good? Or are they just basic and nothing special?

Now, the D3100 comes with the basic 18-55 VR lens and 75-300 III (or some other lens... I cant remember). That's it. It's for $870/£553.

I have been researching on both of these cameras for quite some time and I am a tad bit confused. Some say the D3100 is better. Others say the EOS 550D. [I am interested in Macro/Night/Animals/Landscapes/Action/Aperture-based shots]

We need all the details/help we can get because we want to make sure the right decision is made (keeping money in mind).

[Doug Sundseth]

They're both very good cameras that should meet your needs. Try them in your hands; ergonomics are a personal thing, so control location and use may work better for you with one brand than the other. Failing that, if you have friends that shoot Nikon or Canon, buy that brand, since they'll be more likely to be able to help you.

Were I starting, I'd start with just the 18-55 lens, then buy stuff when you find out you can't do what you want with what you have. The kit lenses for both brands are better than their press and will get very nice results in most situations. The add-on lenses you mentioned are similar quality. And the other accessories in kits like this are mostly, shall we say, high profit margin items.

[ceremus]

I usually advise against getting package deals because they're often padded with crap that you don't need and won't end up using. Typically cheap tripods, or bad UV filters and other such nonsense. The only worthwhile thing they usually include is a memory card, assuming it's of a decent speed class rating (you need at least a class 6 or 10). On the Canon package you're looking at, the only things I can say for certain are not garbage are the camera, the kit lens, and the 50mm. The 75-300mm is a very cheap lens that has poor image quality throughout the entire focal length and aperture range. If you want a telephoto zoom lens in that range you're better off looking at the 55-250mm or the 70-300mm USM (not the L version or the DO version). I'll have to let someone else speak for the Nikon side, I don't know their lineups as well.

As for the bodies themselves, it largely depends on you. Both the ones you're looking at are decent entry level bodies, and being Canon/Nikon both systems have a good selection of lenses/flashes/etc of both 1st & 3rd party manufacturers. I haven't shot with it, but I know the d3100 is a nicely compact DSLR, it won't take up a lot of room. If you're interested in doing HDR photography you will probably want to look at a model other than the d3100 as it does not include exposure bracketing.

Although you really shouldn't look at the features of the camera to decide which one you want to buy. More important to that decision are the selection of lenses that are available to either system. The choice of camera body means you dedicate yourself to that system's mount type, and that will effectively dictate all the other pieces of equipment you acquire from then on. Given another 2-3 years time you could easily discard your chosen camera for a newer updated model, but you're going to hold on to the lenses you purchased. A good quality lens can easily outprice the cost of your camera body. The smart money has always been to spend more on the lens than the camera, so make sure you can find the lenses you want in the system you choose.

On the Nikon side you have a large selection of lenses that goes back for years, so if you know someone with a lot of old Nikon glass, or you like going through the used market for older, less expensive glass, you may prefer that system. The trade off with that is the cheaper Nikon bodies (like the d3100) do not include a focus motor, so any Nikon lens without an internal focus motor will be manual-focus-only on that body.

Canon on the other hand abandoned all of their older manual-focus lenses when they changed to their autofocus mount, but they by far have the largest selection of fully electronic autofocus lenses, and every one of their lenses is fully compatible with even the cheapest Canon DSLR.

[veritasimagery]

In reality, the 550D is a much better camera then the D3100. If you were to look at a better comparison then it would be the Canon 1100D and Nikon D3100. Those two cameras are the companies true entry level ones. The 550D is a step up, along with it's update, the 600D. Personally, if you can afford the 550D, that's what I'd go for.

As far as lenses go, I agree with other, bundles are not really the best way to go. And yes, the Canon EF-S 55-250 is a way better lens than the EF 75-300.

The other thing, as the others have noted, is that you are looking at more then just a camera, you're looking at a system.

[ikur]

I never thought about the idea of staying with one camera brand because of the lenses we would end up buying! It also seems that the D3100 has better image quality (slightly) and it's compact (we dont want a bulky camera). I have a feeling that we would most probably look at upgrading to a Nikon D7000 or the likes (in around 5 or 6 years time). We fell in love with that camera after we tested it in the shop.

I have tried out the Canon 500D and was not a fan of the interface. So, I guess we'll most probably go with the Nikon.

One more thing! What lenses would be best for the D3100? Something that isnt too expensive?

Thank you so much, everyone! I feel more confident in making an investment now. You guys cleared up most of the confusion!
c:

[Doug Sundseth]

The kit lens is inexpensive and pretty good. You won't lose much by owning it (EBay) and it will give you the experience you need to determine what you really want. As you shoot, you'll find out what you can't do with what you have. Then buy a lens to cover the gap. (Or lighting equipment ... or a plane ticket to someplace nice if the lens does everything you want. )

[bigben6]

Canon 550D vs Nikon D3100
I'd say thats pretty strong comparison....
Canon 1100D vs Nikon D3100
Not really a comparison....

I will say stick with the nikon for the following reasons bases solely on statistics in the above link:
ISO performance
Color depth
Focus system
The fact that you like the nikon better already... ok thats not in the above link you YOU said it

IQ (even though the nikon "wins") is as as close as make no difference and is more impacted by your lens.

Megapixels is really not a factor here as either will print MUCH bigger @ 300dpi than you will prolly ever wanna print a good comparison is here: http://www.owlsweb.info/ce/past/best...pixelchart.pdf
As you can see you 14mp Nikon will prolly produce a solid 10x15 image while the cannon would make a solid 11.5x17, but ask yourself WHEN you intend to print that big before you even consider that as a factor.



For glass i would say that I like my Nikon 18-105 for out doors, though after shooting my friends Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 i would LOVE that lens.

I just got this lens: Nikon AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G DX Lens 2183 B&H Photo Video
And am loving its speed in poor light though it has a fixed focal length.

In good light the 55-200 VR is also a solid lens, and can be found regularly on the web for ~$150, check Ebay, amazon etc for best prices.


Long story short, both cmaera will be pretty darn good, i think my old D40 is good and both of these blow it out of the water, i dont think you can go WRONG with either, i do think the D3100 is a better performer in areas that MATTER TO ME, but you need to make sure that what you buys works for areas that MATTER TO YOU.

[ceremus]

Originally Posted by ikur

...

One more thing! What lenses would be best for the D3100? Something that isnt too expensive?

Thank you so much, everyone! I feel more confident in making an investment now. You guys cleared up most of the confusion!
c:

Aye, get used to the kit lens to get yourself started. As Doug states, once you figure out its strengths and weaknesses you can figure out what lens you'll want that has the capabilities you're looking for. What those capabilities are is entirely dependent on you and what you want to shoot.

But you can always start by learning the basics: Digital camera lens buying guide: Guides: Learn: Digital Photography Review

[ikur]

Originally Posted by Doug Sundseth

The kit lens is inexpensive and pretty good. You won't lose much by owning it (EBay) and it will give you the experience you need to determine what you really want. As you shoot, you'll find out what you can't do with what you have. Then buy a lens to cover the gap. (Or lighting equipment ... or a plane ticket to someplace nice if the lens does everything you want. )

Thanks! I guess that sounds reasonable. If I feel the kit lens is not what I need, I could always buy it off eBay!

[ikur]

Originally Posted by ceremus

Aye, get used to the kit lens to get yourself started. As Doug states, once you figure out its strengths and weaknesses you can figure out what lens you'll want that has the capabilities you're looking for. What those capabilities are is entirely dependent on you and what you want to shoot.

But you can always start by learning the basics: Digital camera lens buying guide: Guides: Learn: Digital Photography Review

Indeed. It would be best to get used to it.
Thank you for the link! It looks very helpful!