Canon Rebel T3i vs Nikon D5100 (or something else?)

[saintstickets]

I know there are diehard Canon & Nikon fans out there and the debate is akin to those that prefer a Ford/Chevy/Dodge truck. I am trying to decide between the Canon EOS Rebel T3i or the Nikon D5100. Both are roughly the same price in the starter kit with a 18-55mm lens. There are numerous differences between the two such as -
Canon - 18mp, 9pt AF, 3.7fps Cont Shooting, 18.2oz weight
Nikon - 16.2mp, 11pt AF, 4.0fps Cont Shooting, 19.7oz weight

Those are the "brochure" differences. There are many other technical differences. I'm not leaning either way. For those that have used both or have a preference, please convince me one way or the other. Also, how does your preference rate with a different lens and/or other accessories? My main usage is during vacations but I also take portraits for my genealogical research and landscape pics as well. Your comments and suggestions are appreciated.

 

[zackiedawg]

I know there are diehard Canon & Nikon fans out there and the debate is akin to those that prefer a Ford/Chevy/Dodge truck.

Well actually, your debate is more of a Ford/Chevy thing...since you are only looking at two brands. You're leaving out Dodge (Sony), Toyota (Olympus), Nissan (Pentax), etc. from your consideration. You won't know if one of those might have actually suited you better, since they're not on your shopping list.

I am trying to decide between the Canon EOS Rebel T3i or the Nikon D5100. Both are roughly the same price in the starter kit with a 18-55mm lens...Those are the "brochure" differences. There are many other technical differences. I'm not leaning either way.

Honestly, the trick is to check out the cameras in person, and handle them. First key is whether one feels better in your hand than the other. There's a much bigger difference between these two in design and handling than in image quality or features. I can tell you I would be horribly uncomfortable with one, and better with the other, but which is which for me means absolutely nothing to someone else. There are people who are at once in heaven holding a Canon, and the same for a Nikon...and for that matter, all the other DSLR brands...there's no way to know which works best for you until you really handle them (not just picking up in the store - really try holding, shooting, manipulating and accessing all the controls, hanging by your side, walking with, etc.).

Features may also be a huge selling point, as well as lenses. It might be a key feature missing from one and not the other that you feel you cannot live without. It may be the one lens you absolutely couldn't live without is available for one and not the other. It might even be that neither of these has the one absolutely incredible feature you never knew you needed, and some other model out there does - did you eliminate other models or brands for some well-considered and logical reason, or for a trivial or bias reason, or just because you didn't even knew there were other options? If you made a rational choice to hone down to just these two models, then you should be more than able to search through the key features of the two, and the lens selection, and see if there is one key thing that eliminates one of the two. Unfortunately, again - there are going to be fans of both, likely more than a few of which are going to pop in this thread with 1 or 2 simple lines of 'I have a xxx, and I love it, it's the best' comments...honestly, none of which is really going to help you get the perfect camera for you.

I'd strongly consider checking out all brands, all models, and eliminating based on 1. Ergonomics and feel in your hands, 2. Key features you do not want to go without, 3. Lenses available that you want the most. After that, things as esoteric as lens collection size, backwards compatibility, bias, brand-name cache and image, and any other reason you want to use can be considered!

 

[pjacobi]

I suggest reading the detailed review of both cameras at http://www.dpreview.com/


-Paul

 

[HPS3]

This is just my opinion. I'm not going to say one is better than the other, they both take great photos. I had a T2i which I sold to buy my D5100. I really liked the Canon until I used my brothers D3100. To me it felt better in my hands, I liked the grip alot better. For me the swivel screen really doesnt make that much difference I have only used it a couple of times. The D5100 doesn't feel as cheap and plasticy. As far as lenses, I find the kit Nikon lens is sharper as well as the cheap primes. I can tell you the Nikon 35mm f1.8 AF-S is way sharper than the Canon 50mm f1.8. There is nothing that I preferred on the T2i over the D5100 but thats just my opinion.

 

[Anewman]

This is just my opinion...

What he said... I found the exact opposite, but that is just my opinion.


Seriously though, you really can not go wrong with any of the current DSLRs.

I would also add, ask yourself what type of shooting you will mostly be doing. Look at lens options offered that would be closest to ideal by each respective brand. I personally can get used to a camera that might not fit my hands perfectly, but I would not step on a the sidelines of a high school football game without my 70-200mm 2.8

Again just my take...

 

[bob100]

What he said... I found the exact opposite, but that is just my opinion.

Seriously though, you really can not go wrong with any of the current DSLRs.
I.

right, I have some friends with Nikons but when I compared models and the pics - it was obvious Canon was better!!

I know there are diehard Canon & Nikon fans out there and the debate is akin to those that prefer a Ford/Chevy/Dodge truck. I am trying to decide between the Canon EOS Rebel T3i or the Nikon D5100. Both are roughly the same price in the starter kit with a 18-55mm lens. There are numerous differences between the two such as -
Canon - 18mp, 9pt AF, 3.7fps Cont Shooting, 18.2oz weight
Nikon - 16.2mp, 11pt AF, 4.0fps Cont Shooting, 19.7oz weight
Those are the "brochure" differences. There are many other technical differences. I'm not leaning either way. For those that have used both or have a preference, please convince me one way or the other. Also, how does your preference rate with a different lens and/or other accessories? My main usage is during vacations but I also take portraits for my genealogical research and landscape pics as well. Your comments and suggestions are appreciated.

The new T3i (600D) is good but look at the older Canon T2i (550D) and 18-55IS - cheaper but still good!
http://www.popphoto.com/gear/2010/05/camera-test-canon-eos-rebel-t2i

and the Canon kit lens (18-55IS) and 50mm 1.8 - significantly sharper than Nikon !
www.photozone.de

 

[saintstickets]

LOL...I kinda figured I would get this reaction but I also hoped for advice and insight which I received and for that I thank you. Keep it coming folks!

Well actually, your debate is more of a Ford/Chevy thing...since you are only looking at two brands. You're leaving out Dodge (Sony), Toyota (Olympus), Nissan (Pentax), etc. from your consideration. You won't know if one of those might have actually suited you better, since they're not on your shopping list.

Honestly, the trick is to check out the cameras in person, and handle them. First key is whether one feels better in your hand than the other. There's a much bigger difference between these two in design and handling than in image quality or features. I can tell you I would be horribly uncomfortable with one, and better with the other, but which is which for me means absolutely nothing to someone else. There are people who are at once in heaven holding a Canon, and the same for a Nikon...and for that matter, all the other DSLR brands...there's no way to know which works best for you until you really handle them (not just picking up in the store - really try holding, shooting, manipulating and accessing all the controls, hanging by your side, walking with, etc.).

Features may also be a huge selling point, as well as lenses. It might be a key feature missing from one and not the other that you feel you cannot live without. It may be the one lens you absolutely couldn't live without is available for one and not the other. It might even be that neither of these has the one absolutely incredible feature you never knew you needed, and some other model out there does - did you eliminate other models or brands for some well-considered and logical reason, or for a trivial or bias reason, or just because you didn't even knew there were other options? If you made a rational choice to hone down to just these two models, then you should be more than able to search through the key features of the two, and the lens selection, and see if there is one key thing that eliminates one of the two. Unfortunately, again - there are going to be fans of both, likely more than a few of which are going to pop in this thread with 1 or 2 simple lines of 'I have a xxx, and I love it, it's the best' comments...honestly, none of which is really going to help you get the perfect camera for you.

I'd strongly consider checking out all brands, all models, and eliminating based on 1. Ergonomics and feel in your hands, 2. Key features you do not want to go without, 3. Lenses available that you want the most. After that, things as esoteric as lens collection size, backwards compatibility, bias, brand-name cache and image, and any other reason you want to use can be considered!

I have no problem with a Dodge (Sony), Toyota (Olympus), Nissan (Pentax) or even a GMC (Panasonic) but I was trying to keep the price below $850 for the basic kit so that is why I picked those two models. I guess I could add a Sony SLT-A55 to the mix in that price range but there is no reason to eliminate others - just unaware of other options.
I've tried going to Best Buy to see these options in person and physically hold the camera but they are always out of one or the other. Too bad they won't let you take it out for a test drive and use it before you buy.

I suggest reading the detailed review of both cameras at http://www.dpreview.com/

-Paul

Thanks Paul for the link. It has a ton of information.

This is just my opinion. I'm not going to say one is better than the other, they both take great photos. I had a T2i which I sold to buy my D5100. I really liked the Canon until I used my brothers D3100. To me it felt better in my hands, I liked the grip alot better. For me the swivel screen really doesnt make that much difference I have only used it a couple of times. The D5100 doesn't feel as cheap and plasticy. As far as lenses, I find the kit Nikon lens is sharper as well as the cheap primes. I can tell you the Nikon 35mm f1.8 AF-S is way sharper than the Canon 50mm f1.8. There is nothing that I preferred on the T2i over the D5100 but thats just my opinion.

Thanks for the info about the Nikon lens. It doesn't do much good to buy a Cadillac camera body and then go cheap on the lens.

What he said... I found the exact opposite, but that is just my opinion.

Seriously though, you really can not go wrong with any of the current DSLRs. I would also add, ask yourself what type of shooting you will mostly be doing. Look at lens options offered that would be closest to ideal by each respective brand. I personally can get used to a camera that might not fit my hands perfectly, but I would not step on a the sidelines of a high school football game without my 70-200mm 2.8

Again just my take...

LOL... To each his own right? I loved my 70-200mm zoom I had with my old Minolta SLR.

right, I have some friends with Nikons but when I compared models and the pics - it was obvious Canon was better!!

The new T3i (600D) is good but look at the older Canon T2i (550D) and 18-55IS - cheaper but still good!
http://www.popphoto.com/gear/2010/05/camera-test-canon-eos-rebel-t2i

and the Canon kit lens (18-55IS) and 50mm 1.8 - significantly sharper than Nikon !
www.photozone.de

I'll have to look at those links. I thought about the Canon T2i and the Nikon D3100 but the step up to the T3i and D5100 is awfully tempting.

 

[mom2rtk]

If you're ever going to buy a 70-200 2.8 lens, then having a body with built-in Image Stabilization is a huge plus. The IS in adds a lot to the cost of those lenses.

 

[ukcatfan]

I have no problem with a Dodge (Sony), Toyota (Olympus), Nissan (Pentax) or even a GMC (Panasonic) but I was trying to keep the price below $850 for the basic kit so that is why I picked those two models. I guess I could add a Sony SLT-A55 to the mix in that price range but there is no reason to eliminate others - just unaware of other options.
I've tried going to Best Buy to see these options in person and physically hold the camera but they are always out of one or the other. Too bad they won't let you take it out for a test drive and use it before you buy.

I forgive you since you don't know about those brands, but keeping the price low is one of the main reasons that people go to brands other than Canon and Nikon. You often get more for your money with the other brands. Also check out the Pentax K-r & K-x and the Sony A580 which is a traditional DSLR where the A55 is a little different.

 

[Anewman]

If you're ever going to buy a 70-200 2.8 lens, then having a body with built-in Image Stabilization is a huge plus. The IS in adds a lot to the cost of those lenses.

One might assume that to be the case, and in some cases it is very true. But it is not across the board.

In this example Sony is the only in-body IS brand that sells a 70-200mm 2.8, and it is $400 more than the Canon version(non IS). IS is not going to help with high school football anyways.

There are many other examples where the IS lenses from Canon or Nikon are comparably priced vs the lenses from those that have in-body IS.

 

[d3mckinl]

Congrats on making the leap to the DSLR world.

You made a quick note that you had a old minolta lens. You may want to look closer at the sony bodys to see if your minolta gear is compatable. (sony bought minolta) Also consider what do your friends/ family shoot with if you could swap lenses with them there would be a cost savings.

That aside I made my choise of a D90 nikon because it was the only body that felt good in my hands. With long fingers the smaller entry level grips were a bit cramped. I figured that when holding nearly 2 pounds perficatly still the grip is important.

Try to find a actual camera store near by they tend to be more oen to you taking your time and exploring the camera even taking test shots and playing with settings in the store than the big box stores are. then you can always find great deals online.

 

[zackiedawg]

In this example Sony is the only in-body IS brand that sells a 70-200mm 2.8, and it is $400 more than the Canon version(non IS).

Then again, the Sony 70-200 F2.8 is $700 cheaper than Canon's IS version. Which I think was the previous poster's point - that sometimes the cameras with in-body IS can come away cheaper since you don't have to buy the IS version of the lens in order to get IS. And of course, there are always third-party lenses like the Sigma 70-200mm F2.8, which are even cheaper.

There are many other examples where the IS lenses from Canon or Nikon are comparably priced vs the lenses from those that have in-body IS.

But you are correct here - by no means are Sony's non-IS lenses always cheaper than Canon or Nikon's IS versions. In many cases, Tamron, Tokina, or Sigma will make the very same lens available in these 3 mounts, but the Sony version doesn't have IS while the other two do - you don't get any discount on the Sony version because there's no IS in the lens.

IS in-body is a very nice convenience, and SOMETIMES can save some money especially when buying older lenses, knowing you still receive the stabilization on all lenses...and a nice special perk for things like primes and UWAs which don't even come in stabilized versions. But it's all dependent on the particular lens, and both Canon and Nikon have some very good, competitive pricing on some IS lenses that meet or beat Sony's non-IS price for the same equivalent. Ditto for Pentax.

To the OP - you can also drop the Pentax KR, the Sony A580, and Sony A560 into the mix for your price target...all should be under $900 with kit lens. The only viable reason to eliminate any of the models would be because you don't like the way they feel in your hands, or they are missing a key feature you value strongly. Hope it helps you find the best camera for you!

 

[saintstickets]

If you're ever going to buy a 70-200 2.8 lens, then having a body with built-in Image Stabilization is a huge plus. The IS in adds a lot to the cost of those lenses.

One might assume that to be the case, and in some cases it is very true. But it is not across the board.

In this example Sony is the only in-body IS brand that sells a 70-200mm 2.8, and it is $400 more than the Canon version(non IS). IS is not going to help with high school football anyways.

There are many other examples where the IS lenses from Canon or Nikon are comparably priced vs the lenses from those that have in-body IS.

Then again, the Sony 70-200 F2.8 is $700 cheaper than Canon's IS version. Which I think was the previous poster's point - that sometimes the cameras with in-body IS can come away cheaper since you don't have to buy the IS version of the lens in order to get IS. And of course, there are always third-party lenses like the Sigma 70-200mm F2.8, which are even cheaper.

But you are correct here - by no means are Sony's non-IS lenses always cheaper than Canon or Nikon's IS versions. In many cases, Tamron, Tokina, or Sigma will make the very same lens available in these 3 mounts, but the Sony version doesn't have IS while the other two do - you don't get any discount on the Sony version because there's no IS in the lens.

IS in-body is a very nice convenience, and SOMETIMES can save some money especially when buying older lenses, knowing you still receive the stabilization on all lenses...and a nice special perk for things like primes and UWAs which don't even come in stabilized versions. But it's all dependent on the particular lens, and both Canon and Nikon have some very good, competitive pricing on some IS lenses that meet or beat Sony's non-IS price for the same equivalent. Ditto for Pentax.

To the OP - you can also drop the Pentax KR, the Sony A580, and Sony A560 into the mix for your price target...all should be under $900 with kit lens. The only viable reason to eliminate any of the models would be because you don't like the way they feel in your hands, or they are missing a key feature you value strongly. Hope it helps you find the best camera for you!

Thanks for the info. I'm learning more and more with each post. Keep 'em coming!

I forgive you since you don't know about those brands, but keeping the price low is one of the main reasons that people go to brands other than Canon and Nikon. You often get more for your money with the other brands. Also check out the Pentax K-r & K-x and the Sony A580 which is a traditional DSLR where the A55 is a little different.

I've noticed that about the A55. It has captured my attention. Anyone used the A55?

You made a quick note that you had a old minolta lens. You may want to look closer at the sony bodys to see if your minolta gear is compatable. (sony bought minolta) Also consider what do your friends/ family shoot with if you could swap lenses with them there would be a cost savings.

That aside I made my choise of a D90 nikon because it was the only body that felt good in my hands. With long fingers the smaller entry level grips were a bit cramped. I figured that when holding nearly 2 pounds perficatly still the grip is important.

Try to find a actual camera store near by they tend to be more oen to you taking your time and exploring the camera even taking test shots and playing with settings in the store than the big box stores are. then you can always find great deals online.

It's an old Minolta XG-1 so I don't think the lens will mount on a newer Sony. My next step was a Kodak EasyShare Z1012 IS but I'm ready to step it up again now. Not but one REAL camera store here in our little burg but I'll see what they have.


Thanks again for all the comments. As previously said, I am not "wed" to just the Canon T3i or Nikon D5100. Any other suggestions would be appreciated.

 

[zackiedawg]

You're right on your old Minolta - it's an MD mount, which is the forerunner of the A-mount, so they won't work on the current Sony DSLR bodies without an adapter. However, if you have any good condition lenses still around for that MD mount camera, note that they DO have some value for any of the mirrorless cameras out there - the Olympus & Panasonic Micro 4:3 cameras, Sony NEX cameras, and Samsung NX cameras all can take any old manual lenses with a simple spacer ring, and there's much demand for good, older glass. The kit lens stuff won't be worth much, but if you've got any fast primes, or well-regarded zooms, you might get a few extra bucks off those if you decide to sell them.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

I've noticed that about the A55. It has captured my attention. Anyone used the A55?

Yes, there are several on the board that have the Sony A55. I've had one since the beginning of the year and have been very happy with it. It gives you a lot of bang for the buck including 10 fps and continuous video autofocus. I like the EVF b/c it shows you what you are getting in your shot such as exposure. If it looks black then your picture will too!

It uses the same mount as the Minolta Maxxum line which offers a whole other selection of lenses in the used market. It has the inbody stabilization which gives you another feature that's hard to find in several other camera line's - the ability to have stabilization with fast prime lenses.

 

[saintstickets]

You're right on your old Minolta - it's an MD mount, which is the forerunner of the A-mount, so they won't work on the current Sony DSLR bodies without an adapter. However, if you have any good condition lenses still around for that MD mount camera, note that they DO have some value for any of the mirrorless cameras out there - the Olympus & Panasonic Micro 4:3 cameras, Sony NEX cameras, and Samsung NX cameras all can take any old manual lenses with a simple spacer ring, and there's much demand for good, older glass. The kit lens stuff won't be worth much, but if you've got any fast primes, or well-regarded zooms, you might get a few extra bucks off those if you decide to sell them.

Thanks for the tip. I'll look around and see what I can get. Gazelle.com also buys old cameras and lens.

Yes, there are several on the board that have the Sony A55. I've had one since the beginning of the year and have been very happy with it. It gives you a lot of bang for the buck including 10 fps and continuous video autofocus. I like the EVF b/c it shows you what you are getting in your shot such as exposure. If it looks black then your picture will too!

It uses the same mount as the Minolta Maxxum line which offers a whole other selection of lenses in the used market. It has the inbody stabilization which gives you another feature that's hard to find in several other camera line's - the ability to have stabilization with fast prime lenses.

Thanks for the response. I have no idea what I will end up with. I went to the only local non-big box camera store in town today and they didn't have much of a selection. They tried to sell me the Canon 60d which is a step above the T3i and more $'s!

 

[ukcatfan]

They tried to sell me the Canon 60d which is a step above the T3i and more $'s!

I would stay away from any place that tried to sell me anything. If they were motivated to actually help you find the right one for you then they would know that pushing one is not the right way.

 

[saintstickets]

I would stay away from any place that tried to sell me anything. If they were motivated to actually help you find the right one for you then they would know that pushing one is not the right way.

Kinda how I felt. I'm going to go to a camera store in another town tomorrow and look at the alternatives. There are some pretty decent sales online right now but I'd still rather hold each camera first before I decide. History says that Dec, Jan & Feb are the best times to buy cameras but I'm not sure I can wait that long!

 

[saintstickets]

Well....going to the camera store and holding each camera only made me more undecided! All 3 (Canon T3i, Nikon D5100 & Sony A55) were great. I'm kind of surprised there weren't more opinionated opinions on this thread for personal preferences! Any info, tidbit, comments or rants are welcomed.

 

[mom2rtk]

Well....going to the camera store and holding each camera only made me more undecided! All 3 (Canon T3i, Nikon D5100 & Sony A55) were great. I'm kind of surprised there weren't more opinionated opinions on this thread for personal preferences! Any info, tidbit, comments or rants are welcomed.

Honestly, if they were all acceptable, then it just becomes a matter of features for the money. Burst rate, ISO capability, in-body IS, that sort of thing.

I have a Canon T2i and love it. I doubt you'd be unhappy with ANY of those choices. The truth is that it probably takes owning one of the models for a while to realize what you value most. So make your best guess, jump in with both feet, and keep notes on what you'll want NEXT time! I LOVE my T2i, but will definitely will go with a higher burst rate on my next model.