Nikon vs. Canon question - 5100, 3100, 3Ti

[magnoliaparadise]

Hi,

I just read some BBB threads on this and wanted to ask for some thoughts. Costco has a great package on Nikons and Canons and after years of wanting a nice camera, I've decided to buy one.

The prices seem cheap, after preliminary research. For a camera, camera case, 2 lenses, an 'educational' DVD, and a memory card, the cost is:
$650 for Nikon 3100
$900 for Nikon 5100
$820 for Canon 3Ti (not positive about this price, but I think from memory)

I am leaning towards Nikon because it feels lighter and smaller in my hands and because I have very old lenses that a friend sold me years ago (on a non-digital Nikon that I never use). I also like that Nikon has a camera 'school' that you can take in NYC (which is made up of two one day separate classes for approx. $140 each.

My quick questions that I'm trying to answer in deciding among the three cameras:
- Can I assume that my non-digital Nikon lenses will fit my new 3100 or 5100?
- is it true that the Nikon 5100 is really hard for a beginner, lacks an auto feature, etc? I am almost sure, in my research, that the 5100 has an auto feature - yet everyone seems to say this so now I'm questioning it.
- Do some find that Canon software is more user friendly than Nikon (as I've heard)?
- Does Canon software convert raw images to .jpg easier (as I've heard)?
- If I did choose a Canon, one reason would be that everyone seems to have a Canon, which makes me think it'd be easier to take classes, etc., and give/get help from others with the same system. Have others found that?

Any suggestions between the Nikon and Canon would be very much appreciated! (I've researched prior threads on BBB and it seems like there are a lot of Nikon devotees on the board, but some Canons as well).

And if anyone has any thoughts between the 3100 and 5100, I'd appreciate it. If between those, I'm leaning towards the 5100 because it is supposedly much better in lower light. It also has a swivel screen, but I don't think that matters to me. And I can 'grow' into it.

Thanks in advance.

[echoesofspring]

We have the 5100 and love it. It absolutely positively has autofocus, or we wouldn't love it ;)...but you can turn it off and do a manual focus which is nice. But I am a total dslr newbie...it's way, way, way more camera than I ever use, so who knows, I might be saying I love the 3100 if I had that one instead, kwim?

I don't think you can assume you're old lenses will fit the camera, or if they do fit will work with image stability feature.

We bought our camera right be xmas, so it's been a while since I checked prices, did all my research, but in general what I've read is that the the packages aren't always best route to go, the packaged lenses are just ok, but they may be fine. I didn't get the zoom, b/c when I bought my camera a friend of mine had just purchased a really nice 18-200mm for her Nikon 5000, and I decided I would buy the cheaper package and save up for that lens (it's something like $800 used). There was a long dslr thread around the holidays and a prime lens was suggested. I did splurge on that, and I'm so glad I did (so I have one pkg lens and the prime). Depending on available stock you can sometimes get just the body, or refurbed body plus 1 lens from adorama or b&h, I didn't have much luck doing that, although I did end up buying from b&h. The package I ended up getting came with a 2 disc dvd set of tutorials for your camera, and every week I say this will be the week I start looking at those...

oh, and your old non digital nikon may be worth some money. I had a standard issue students 35mm, fm10 I think, and adorama estimated a buyback price of $80-100 sight unseen for it. I sold it on craiglist for the same, who knew?

[elbenn]

This website is a wealth of information about Nikons.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/

[jbbhb]

I am a camera/photography newbie, so I don't have a ton of advice but I did just read something about the lower end nikons (3100) not having autofocus in the camera body. This means you have to buy a more expensive lens to get auto focus, I think. I believe the ken Rockwell link someone sent you has the info. I have a canon t3 and I love it and am finding it easy to learn.

[mom2khj]

I've had both Canon (originally a Rebel and now a 60D) and Nikon (D90) and I much prefer the Canon. It feels better in my hands and changing settings quickly was more intuitive to me. You'll be happy with pictures out of any of the cameras you listed, especially when coming from a point-and-shoot.

That's mostly personal preference though. If the Nikon feels better in your hands, you'll like it better. If you plan to learn to shoot in manual, make sure adjusting the settings is comfortable for you in whichever one you get.

Lenses - as PP mentioned some lower end Nikons don't have auto-focus in the body so you have to be sure to buy lenses that have it.

Software - I don't use either Nikon or Canon software. I use Adobe's Lightroom. I use a card reader and Lightroom imports the pictures to my computer from it. I don't use the camera/software. If you are not shooting in RAW, you don't need to convert to JPG, the camera does it for you. If you do shoot in RAW, you'll need something. I prefer Lightroom.

[KonzaPrairie]

Another vote for the Nikon 5100 here! I bought mine last summer for around that price and it only had one lens. But I really love it and I know next to nothing about photography. I wasn't sure if the swivel screen would be worth the price, but i don't think I could be without it now that I have it! We have been able to take some shots we wouldn't have otherwise.

And it has a fantastic auto setting. Sometimes I try to play around with the other settings and generally don't get nearly as good of pictures as I do with the auto (I would really like to learn how to someday!) And it's true, it does GREAT in low light. We were able to take newborn pics with it and while I'm sure a professional would have done better, people have asked us what photographer we used for the pictures! We only have iPhoto on our MacBook for editing.

I also love taking videos with it.

We also chose the Nikon laregly because it felt better in our hands. I'm sure the quality of pics you can take with the canon would be just as good. I enjoyed holding the Nikon a lot more and it was worth the extra $$ to me. I would ask someone in a camera store about the lens compatibility. We did not have old lenses so that was not an issue for us.

[♥ms.pacman♥]

well i have the previous version of 5100 (the 5000) that i bought in 2008, so it's 4 years old by now and I love it. it does have autofocus, but not during video, which is a little annoying..but you can do that manually. i never use the auto setting..i shoot in all manual, but that's bc i'm picky about how stuff comes out. my dh uses the auto setting all the time.

i bought a 35mm prime lens and i can get great pictures with it.

[FLYAND]

I've had both Canon (originally a Rebel and now a 60D) and Nikon (D90) and I much prefer the Canon. It feels better in my hands and changing settings quickly was more intuitive to me. You'll be happy with pictures out of any of the cameras you listed, especially when coming from a point-and-shoot.

That's mostly personal preference though. If the Nikon feels better in your hands, you'll like it better. If you plan to learn to shoot in manual, make sure adjusting the settings is comfortable for you in whichever one you get.

Lenses - as PP mentioned some lower end Nikons don't have auto-focus in the body so you have to be sure to buy lenses that have it.

Software - I don't use either Nikon or Canon software. I use Adobe's Lightroom. I use a card reader and Lightroom imports the pictures to my computer from it. I don't use the camera/software. If you are not shooting in RAW, you don't need to convert to JPG, the camera does it for you. If you do shoot in RAW, you'll need something. I prefer Lightroom.

It's mostly preference, both Nikon/Canon make good equipment. It comes down to what you are going to take pictures of/lenses, etc.

Almost all Nikon lenses in the past 10yrs have focus motors built into the lenses. You only need a Nikon body with the focus motor built into the body if you are going to use older "screw driven" auto focus lenses. Today there is only a few of those still sold as new.

[FLYAND]

Another vote for the Nikon 5100 here! I bought mine last summer for around that price and it only had one lens. But I really love it and I know next to nothing about photography. I wasn't sure if the swivel screen would be worth the price, but i don't think I could be without it now that I have it! We have been able to take some shots we wouldn't have otherwise.

And it has a fantastic auto setting. Sometimes I try to play around with the other settings and generally don't get nearly as good of pictures as I do with the auto (I would really like to learn how to someday!) And it's true, it does GREAT in low light. We were able to take newborn pics with it and while I'm sure a professional would have done better, people have asked us what photographer we used for the pictures! We only have iPhoto on our MacBook for editing.

I also love taking videos with it.

We also chose the Nikon laregly because it felt better in our hands. I'm sure the quality of pics you can take with the canon would be just as good. I enjoyed holding the Nikon a lot more and it was worth the extra $$ to me. I would ask someone in a camera store about the lens compatibility. We did not have old lenses so that was not an issue for us.

Rule 1, I'm a pro photographer, but you always get better images NOT using the Auto mode. Swivel screen is a gimmick, there are very few times I could have used that feature. Notice, Pro camera bodies don't have swivel screens. Durability.

[FLYAND]

I am a camera/photography newbie, so I don't have a ton of advice but I did just read something about the lower end nikons (3100) not having autofocus in the camera body. This means you have to buy a more expensive lens to get auto focus, I think. I believe the ken Rockwell link someone sent you has the info. I have a canon t3 and I love it and am finding it easy to learn.

You do not have to buy a more expensive lens to get auto focus. Some of the old screw driven lens that won't autofocus on the (3100) can cost more than the very well rated 35mm AFS (focus motor built into the lens) prime that costs about $199.

[codex57]

You do not have to buy a more expensive lens to get auto focus. Some of the old screw driven lens that won't autofocus on the (3100) can cost more than the very well rated 35mm AFS (focus motor built into the lens) prime that costs about $199.

Same with the 5100. Lacks the motor to drive those screw driven lenses. Such as the $100 1.8 50mm that everyone tells you to get. Have to get the $200 ones that have that built into the lens.

The Nikon class sucks. I took it. There are books out there that mainly consist of pictures (so you can see examples of what they're talking about) that will teach you a lot more than that class.

Nikon and Canon are both excellent. It really is a personal preference. To me, the deciding factor should be which brand do all your friends/family use? Who can you ask for help from? Who can you borrow equipment from? If all your friends/family use Nikon, get a Nikon. If they all use Canon, get a Canon.

[FLYAND]

[QUOTE=echoesofspring;3569541]We have the 5100 and love it. It absolutely positively has autofocus, or we wouldn't love it ;)...but you can turn it off and do a manual focus which is nice. But I am a total dslr newbie...it's way, way, way more camera than I ever use, so who knows, I might be saying I love the 3100 if I had that one instead, kwim?

I don't think you can assume you're old lenses will fit the camera, or if they do fit will work with image stability feature.

Nikon cameras, even the old film SLR, use the F mount and their old film lenses will fit the newer DSLRs. The autofocus may not work. Have to check year of the lens to see if it's compatible. The pro bodies can take lenses older than the consumer bodies can. The VR (Image stability) is built into the lens, not the body, so the lens has to have it.
We bought our camera right be xmas, so it's been a while since I checked prices, did all my research, but in general what I've read is that the the packages aren't always best route to go, the packaged lenses are just ok, but they may be fine.

The kit zoom is decent, but slow (not that good indoors, no flash).

I didn't get the zoom, b/c when I bought my camera a friend of mine had just purchased a really nice 18-200mm for her Nikon 5000, and I decided I would buy the cheaper package and save up for that lens (it's something like $800 used).

The problem with the 18-200mm is that it's the jack of all trades, master of none. It's slow, so not that useful indoors, no flash situations. Lens that cover that much ground give up something in image quality. There is a reason that to cover 18-200 with PRO lenses, you need 2 lenses.

There was a long dslr thread around the holidays and a prime lens was suggested. I did splurge on that, and I'm so glad I did (so I have one pkg lens and the prime).

The 35mm AFS prime is very good, esp for only about $199 new.

Depending on available stock you can sometimes get just the body, or refurbed body plus 1 lens from adorama or b&h, I didn't have much luck doing that, although I did end up buying from b&h. The package I ended up getting came with a 2 disc dvd set of tutorials for your camera, and every week I say this will be the week I start looking at those...

oh, and your old non digital nikon may be worth some money. I had a standard issue students 35mm, fm10 I think, and adorama estimated a buyback price of $80-100 sight unseen for it. I sold it on craiglist for the same, who knew?

Your old non digital nikon lenses can be used on the new DSLR's, some may not autofocus.

[FLYAND]

Same with the 5100. Lacks the motor to drive those screw driven lenses. Such as the $100 1.8 50mm that everyone tells you to get. Have to get the $200 ones that have that built into the lens.

The Nikon class sucks. I took it. There are books out there that mainly consist of pictures (so you can see examples of what they're talking about) that will teach you a lot more than that class.

Nikon and Canon are both excellent. It really is a personal preference. To me, the deciding factor should be which brand do all your friends/family use? Who can you ask for help from? Who can you borrow equipment from? If all your friends/family use Nikon, get a Nikon. If they all use Canon, get a Canon.

The problem with the $100 F1.8 50mm is that it's a little too long on the DX bodies (D5100). It acts like a small telephoto on those bodies. It's best suited on the FX, Full frame bodies. The 35mm prime works as a much better focal length on DX (D5100).

Yes, agreed on Nikon/Canon. In my case I have many Nikon film lenses from the past 20+ yrs I still use, in addition to my newer pro lenses, so I chose Nikon.

[codex57]

She should go to a store and test out the 35 vs 50mm. See if she thinks it's "too long." She may decide a 50 is too long, or she may decide to go with the 50 (tons of used ones out there) and if she wants more of a wide angle later, get a real wide angle lens like a 10-22 or whatever.

Flyland, you seem to be either an advanced enthusiast or a pro. I don't think you're tailoring your answers to her level (beginner). The reason the 18-200 is so popular is because there are more beginners than pros. No, it's not perfect. However, its advantage is that it's simple and convenient. Just one lens. Don't need anything else on a vacation, which means a much smaller camera bag. A dslr with lens is big enough, particularly when most beginners came from a tiny point and shoot. So, the convenience of just having one lens in the 18-200 more than makes up for any of its deficiencies. Particularly image quality, which nearly everyone really won't notice because they aren't gonna work in RAW files and blow it up to see the individual pixels. They're gonna post it to Facebook, which downgrades the image quality anyways or print it out on a 4x6 print. 8x10 at most.

She's looking at a 5100. Forget anything "pro" or RAW or full frame. That's just gonna confuse the OP and it's extremely unlikely she'll ever get into that stuff anyways.

[FLYAND]

[QUOTE=codex57;3569887]She should go to a store and test out the 35 vs 50mm. See if she thinks it's "too long." She may decide a 50 is too long, or she may decide to go with the 50 (tons of used ones out there) and if she wants more of a wide angle later, get a real wide angle lens like a 10-22 or whatever.
Agreed, it's up to her. Based on my experience I was just pointing out that a 50mm on a DX body (D5100) is a bit too long in most circumstances and that a 35mm will work better. Even a 35mm may not work.

Flyland, you seem to be either an advanced enthusiast or a pro.
Yes I am a pro.
I don't think you're tailoring your answers to her level (beginner).
I do not know her level of expertise. Just pointing out the facts.

The reason the 18-200 is so popular is because there are more beginners than pros. No, it's not perfect.
It's expensive at nearly $850. Most beginners wouldn't be buying it.
However, its advantage is that it's simple and convenient. Just one lens. Don't need anything else on a vacation, which means a much smaller camera bag.
Yes, one lens solution as I pointed out as long as one is aware of it's limitations. it's not the lightest lens either. The previous version was known for lens creep, they may have corrected that on this version.

A dslr with lens is big enough, particularly when most beginners came from a tiny point and shoot. So, the convenience of just having one lens in the 18-200 more than makes up for any of its deficiencies.
Yes, maybe for you or the OP.

Particularly image quality, which nearly everyone really won't notice because they aren't gonna work in RAW files and blow it up to see the individual pixels.
Sorry there is a difference, between the 18-200 and pro glass. Your might not see it, but some, including myself do. Some are fine with consumer grade, some aren't. Different strokes for different folks.

They're gonna post it to Facebook, which downgrades the image quality anyways or print it out on a 4x6 print. 8x10 at most.
If they are going to only post it to facebook, why bother getting a DSLR then? Just use a iphone or point and shoot which will be enough and save a lot $$, right?

She's looking at a 5100. Forget anything "pro" or RAW or full frame.
The 5100 has the same sensor as the semi-pro, "pro sumer" D7000. Which is Nikons best DX body. It takes very good pictures in the proper hands.
That's just gonna confuse the OP and it's extremely unlikely she'll ever get into that stuff anyways.
Thanks for telling me, LOL!

[KonzaPrairie]

Rule 1, I'm a pro photographer, but you always get better images NOT using the Auto mode. Swivel screen is a gimmick, there are very few times I could have used that feature. Notice, Pro camera bodies don't have swivel screens. Durability.


Wow Flyand, now I feel insulted for trying to help. Maybe as a pro you think swivel screen is a gimmick, but that's why the 5100 is not marketed to pros. I'm short (5') and sometimes the shot I want is above my head. Swivel screen allows me to do that. Sometimes I'm taking videos of my baby who is close to the ground. Swivel screen allows me to ensure she's actually in the frame of the photo as I'm walking behind her.

And I thought I stated in my original post that even though I know you are supposed to be able to take better photos in manual, I'm not advanced enough to do that yet and get as good of quality as in auto. I personally love how great the auto feature is for a novice like me. Since the OP asked about how good the auto feature was for beginners, I was attempting to answer her question. I know you pros think us novices shouldn't even bother with a DSLR, but there is no point and shoot camera out there that takes pictures with the same quality as a DSLR in auto, and all point and shoot cameras have a shutter lag.

[magnoliaparadise]

Hi all,
OP here. Thank you for all your advice.

Flyand, thanks for chiming in with your knowledge as a professional.

Codex57, you had said not to confuse the OP (me) and that it's extremely unlikely that I'll get into that stuff - but I beg to differ on many counts, so I do appreciate Flyand's specific responses, and yours, and am happy for them to keep coming.

KonzaPrairie, I really appreciated your post and see your points so thank you!

Everyone else - echoesofspring, jbbhb, elbenn, mom2khj, ms.pacman, thank you for your comments, too.

I'm still on the fence - is there somewhere that I could take a mini course in deciding between Nikon or Canon - I could go to a photo store, but I'd love to take actual photos.

And how do professionals become professionals? Flyand, did you study this is a master's degree? I'd like to do that, or something similar. Would it be possible to talk to you or correspond with you at some point?

Thanks.

[codex57]

Well, lay out your goals. Are you thinking, hey, maybe I'll become a pro part time or full time if the opportunity develops? If so, it's good that you're doing your research now.

What is your financial situation now? Are you looking at a 5100 cuz you can't afford anything higher at the moment? Or just that you don't want to?

If you do want to be a pro, what kind of pro? Weddings? Portraits? News?

The more info you provide, the better tailored the answers can be.

[magnoliaparadise]

Hi Codex57,

Thanks for your post - in answering your questions:

- I'd LOVE to become a pro part time and then full time in the future. I know that there is a lot of competition. I have always been that person who have taken photos on a crappy camera and later people happen to see them and note how much they love the photograph or ask which professional took it, etc. Not saying that I am talented, because I don't know and I'm certainly not experienced, but I do think that I have a good natural instinct for taking photos of people and I have a passion to learn it, so would love to learn more (and I do realize that many many people say that they think that they are good at taking photos and it is a very congested field!)

- I could technically afford more than a 5100, but honestly, I want to be somewhat careful with my money and put that towards other things - so I guess it is just that I don't want to. I just don't want to get something SO super professional that by the time I learn it all, I might as well have bought a more modern camera, LOL - I figure if I grow out of the camera, I'll trade it in at that point.

- If I were to be a semi-pro or pro, my passion would be to take portraits - I like the ones outside in action (does that still count as portraits) as much as the more poised ones in studios. This being said, I would do whatever it took to make money and gain experience if I could within my schedule (ie help out a wedding photographer or work for a local yokel newspaper... or maybe they just buy all their photos from Reuters these days). But my passion is portraits and that is where I think I have a natural feel for. I particularly like kids.

TIA for your thoughts (and if others have them too, please comment, too).

[Jen841]

We bought the Costco package from Dec. I saw the 3i on sale there yesterday. LOVE it. I don't have time to really learn it, I learn by fire and it is working. Great with capturing the fast moving sporting events of our boys.

[kcimato]

I have a Canon because that is what I started out with for a SLR. My first 2 point and shoot cameras were also Canons. When I went to purchase my first DSLR I was looking at a Nikon also and couldn't decide. A customer in the store asked me what I shoot with now and when I said Canon he said then go with that. Makes sense. If you already have a Nikon then go with that.

I would not buy the kits and have learned that over the years. I buy the body only and then get an 18-200mm lens. That is what I mainly shoot with.

There is a wonderful site for Canon users www.michaelthemaven.com He has videos for most of the Canon DSLRs and I believe some Nikons. You can also pull up some of his videos on youtube. I bought the video for my camera and he walks you through operation of it and gives some photography lessons. It's the best I've come across. The site also has a forum for questions you may have.