Canon 1100D or Nikon D3100?

shifty_uk · 16 Dec 2012 at 11:54

Looking at treating myself to my first DSLR this winter. Been using a variety of Fuji bridge cameras for years and always had great results but it's time to up the performance and have a variety of lenses, prior to a few trips abroad planned this year!

In terms of performance the Nikon seems to come out on top, offering higher resolution in terms of both images and videos but for me it's about build quality and investment(despite being relatively cheap)

Opinions are either pro-canon or pro-nikon, it's hard getting an unbiased opinion on each brand

What's the thoughts?

shifty_uk · 16 Dec 2012 at 20:58

Cheers guys, I'll have a play around with them both! Having had a look before I think my preferences leaned more towards the Nikon.

theheyes said:
Out of those two I'd go for the Nikon, and I say that as a Canon guy. You do need to look at the broader system though and perhaps think about what sort of lenses you would like to buy further down the line.

I'd be looking at buying some wide angle lenses, not too sure where to begin though! It's not strictly for landscape, I just love the effect when focusing on foreground subjects.

One thing that worries me about the D3100 is the thought of getting bored within 12 months and wanting to upgrade to a better camera if it isn't quite good enough!

Do you think the body will perform enough going forward with new lenses?

shifty_uk · 18 Dec 2012 at 22:51

theheyes said:
It's easy to fall into the trap of thinking 'my photos aren't good enough, it must be the camera' or 'I need a weather sealed body and super awesome AF'. In my experience it's rarely the camera that's at fault, it's more than likely you. And if you find yourself thinking you wish your camera body had feature X, then take the opportunity to work around the problem. That's what good photographers do. Throwing money at new cameras is a bit of a fool's errand.

Valid points there - If can achieve relatively decent results whilst out and about from a little compact bridge camera....

....I'm sure I can achieve decent results with an entry level DSLR.

King Damager said:
To be honest, OP, pick whichever you want. Even long run if you invest in one system of the other, I doubt it'll make a huge difference to you.

It may. It's something I'd like to take more seriously as a hobby. Always had a keen interest in photography and I'd like to have a decent camera for work(I'm a designer) and trips abroad.

shifty_uk · 18 Dec 2012 at 22:56

Oh, just a quick question - I was thinking of buying myself the camera + additional lens for Christmas but I'm a bit hesitant incase Jessops or the likes have a January sale on cameras? Then again, the D3100 is a couple of years old, surely it wont get any cheaper?

Cheers!

shifty_uk · 21 Dec 2012 at 15:27

ShakenNstirred said:
also Nikon D3100 + 18-55mm VR + 55-200mm £349

That's the deal I was going to go for! However, the 55-200mm isn't VR which puts me off slightly! So, after some thought, I'm thinking I'll spend that extra money and just get a 3200 or 5100(at a push) instead!

shifty_uk · 13 Jan 2013 at 23:09

Just an update, thanks for all those who gave advice in the thread, was much appreciated!

I ended up going with the D5100 in the end, put a bit of extra money into it for the performance. Overall, pleased with the purchase, haven't took it out and about yet but it's very easy to get to grips with and the body, features and interface are excellent.

Only niggle is the image quality, I assumed it would be on par with my lower MP bridge cameras in terms of noise performance however, the photos I've taken around the house so far are fairly grainy when zoomed in on, even at varied ISO settings and lighting. Perhaps it's the limited kit lens? New to DSLRs so don't shoot me down

shifty_uk · 13 Jan 2013 at 23:21

Hmm, I'll need to play around with it more. The image quality isn't on par with my other cameras, far too grainy for my liking. It worried me slightly if I'm honest.

shifty_uk · 18 Jan 2013 at 23:25

I think it was just my noobness with the camera in this instance!

On 'auto' it sets the ISO to auto and indoors, seems to select somewhere in the region of 3000+. Which is very strange, even when the room is well lit or I point the camera directly at the light, it still reads ''SUBJECT TOO DARK'' on the screen. :confused:

When it's in manual and I set the ISO to 100, the images are crisp and clear but only with incredibly fast shutter speeds, meaning everything is too dark...even well lit areas... again, just figuring out the camera!

I still think it's strange that the camera finds everything too dark though, even strong light sources.