Confused as to which would be the best to get

koolpc

koolpc

koolpc

Soldato
Joined
2 Dec 2004
Posts
14,536
Location
Under The Desk, Wales
I am after a new camera (2nd hand) and have narrowed it down to these:

Canon 40D
Nikon D90
Nikon 3100
Panasonic G3

I know there are vast differences between the 4 but i like them all!! Would the quality of images be the same between all 3? My uncle has a D90 and i know it is old by todays newer cameras but it does produce nice pics. A workmate has a 50D and again that is a nice camera. G3 feels nice in the hands too and reports say it is a cracker. Again, a mate has the 3100 and he has some cracking shots taken with it.

I like to take all types of pics. A lot indoors with family and on holidays.

I know buying one means buying into the brand. I dont mind that.

Any guidance would be great.
 
Last edited:
D3100 easier to use as a beginner, probably produces slightly better pics then the D90.

D90 for the 'extra's' like being able to AF with older lenses, build quality, better view finder and much better LCD.

Canon/other wise, not used so can't comment :)
 
I would throw my money at the D90, it's a lovely camera, plus you have the option for much cheaper AF lenses, new and old instead of being stuck with AF-S ;)
 
Do you have any lenses already - if you have and they Nikon, Canon etc that might be a factor. The camera bodies will all do a good job, the higher priced will have better features, but don't buy just for massive pixel rating it ain't everything.
 
OK, will you be able to buy lenses in the future? - lenses are what you need to spend money on, they define the photo, the camera only takes it. However, there are some fine lenses available for not that much money. They are slightly older and won't have the USM (ultra sonic motor) so auto focusing will be slightly slower and slightly more noisier.

I can't really offer advice on Nikon as I have Canon myself. Both are good makes and the difference in the two is slight, if at all. BUT - you might find more second hand lenses for Canon.

You could look at a Sigma / Tamron 18-200 or 18-250. I think both of these are f3.5, so not the quickest and in low light you will be using higher ISO and flash, but, both are a good all round lens and will give you a decent focal range. Remember to multiply the range by 1.6 for the Canon and I believe about 1.5 for the Nikon
 
The 40D is older but still produces excellent images, it is also the best built of all the others you mention, with it's Mg Alloy body, you know you're holding it if you know what i mean. The D90 has HD video recording - albeit 720p, and apparently, not the best quality either - that's just someones opinion though.

I was in a similar situation a couple of weeks ago, i had £350 to spend and was looking at the D90, 40D and Panny G3, i instantly disliked the EVF on the panny, so discounted that, so it was just a matter of what came up at the right price first, and having had a 40D before, i was slightly favouring that ahead of the Nikon. Therefore, out of all those you are choosing between, i would, and i did go for the Canon 40D, with budget left to buy a 18-55is lens to use with it for now.

I'd recommend you get yourself down to a camera shop and have a play with each one and decide which you prefer from there.
 
Why I would get a D90

From my experience focus performance has always been better with Nikon, from my experience Nikon's AF is more consistent which became obvious to me after making the switch when shooting at shallow depth of fields.

Below is a few body specific reasons why I'd get the D90 over 40D
Better image quality, lower noise with higher max ISO.
More dynamic range and better colour depth.
Larger viewfinder and the sensor is a little larger also, and less importantly, it has more resolution.
Better LCD
Video (if your into that sort of thing)

The 40D has higher FPS and shutterspeed
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom