Canon EOS 1100D vs Nikon D3100

J

john_d

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1
Name
john
Edit My Images
Yes
Canon EOS 1100D Digital SLR Camera (inc. 18-55 mm f/3.5-5.6 DC III Lens Kit)

Nikon D3100 Digital SLR Camera with 18-55mm VR Lens Kit (14.2MP)

ok so im a noob a this as will no doubt become apparent, im looking to a DSLR and not looking to spend much (£300), the above 2 seem to crop up quite a lot, i have done some research and both appear pretty decent, does 1 have the edge over the other in anyway?
 
john_d said:
Canon EOS 1100D Digital SLR Camera (inc. 18-55 mm f/3.5-5.6 DC III Lens Kit)

Nikon D3100 Digital SLR Camera with 18-55mm VR Lens Kit (14.2MP)

ok so im a noob a this as will no doubt become apparent, im looking to a DSLR and not looking to spend much (£300), the above 2 seem to crop up quite a lot, i have done some research and both appear pretty decent, does 1 have the edge over the other in anyway?
Click to expand...

Hi John and Welcome :wave:

Which to go for - Canon (because I'm a Canon bod) and I'm sure your going to get the same answer from a Nikon user (Nikon though not Canon :D).

Seriously, though, they are going to be pretty much the same and you'll get as good results from either, they are built to a spec and are capable, best advice is to try them both out and see which feels the best to you, whose memory system works most intuitive to you, which ones layout feels and works for you...

The vast majority of times, once a person starts off with a manufacturer, they tend to stay with the, as the invest in lenses, accessories etc, some people do swap, but most tend not to as they get used to how a system works.

Hope this has been some help...
 
Have to agree with Andy here. When the specs are so close as to be irrelevant then the only thing left is what feels best in your hand and also since you are a noob (your word not mine, lol) try and do a little reading up and get familiar with SLR functions because the menus and button layouts can vary quite a bit between manufacturers and some users tend to prefer one over the other. However I suspect if you have never used an SLR before then this may be less of an issue since you will become familiar and comfortable with the system you eventually buy into.
So if there is anywhere locally you could have a hold of and play around with the bodies this would make your decision much easier for you.

Good Luck and welcome to the forums.
 
Agree, the only difference that really matters is how it feels to hold as they are all slightly difference shapes and sizes. If you find no preference in how they feel then just toss a coin and go with that as either will do all you need.
 
john_d said:
Canon EOS 1100D Digital SLR Camera (inc. 18-55 mm f/3.5-5.6 DC III Lens Kit)

Nikon D3100 Digital SLR Camera with 18-55mm VR Lens Kit (14.2MP)

ok so im a noob a this as will no doubt become apparent, im looking to a DSLR and not looking to spend much (£300), the above 2 seem to crop up quite a lot, i have done some research and both appear pretty decent, does 1 have the edge over the other in anyway?
Click to expand...

You could also consider the Sony A58 - with the £30 credit offer it comes to £320, so only £20 above budget: http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00BHXVWVU/1567/ref=nosim

If you are on a a budget the other advantage of a Sony is that you can use old Minolta AF lenses on it (which you cannot do for example with older AF Nikon lenses on the Nikon D3100 as it has no in body focus motor). You can pick up nice lenses like the Minolta 50mm f1.7 for as little as £60 and zoom lenses for a similar amount or less. The Sony also has in body image stabilisation so any lens will be stabilised.

You also get the new 20mp sensor, fast AF in video and fast live view. It's an entry level model so build quality is a bit budget but so are the Nikon and Canon cameras you mentioned above and this is a current generation model in terms of sensor, processor etc rather than the slightly older (2011) models (D3100 14mp and 1100D 12mp).

The main difference with Sony is an evf (electronic view finder) rather than optical - so try before you buy. It does have the advantage of displaying the effect of changes in exposure etc in the viewfinder though. It is also larger than the optical viewfinders of most entry level dsrls. The A58 has the better quality OLED type evf found in the higher range Sony models. Some people don't like evf's though which is fair enough - hence try in a shop before you buy.

In fact you should try whatever you decide to buy beforehand as you may simply prefer the ergonomics of one over the other and as they will all give similar results that is probably the most important consideration.

The other option would be to look at used cameras (Nikon, Canon, Sony etc) and get an older but higher spec model - if you buy from a dealer you usually get a 6 month or even 12 month warranty. For example for £300 you can get a D90 for with a 12 month warranty and very low shutter count: http://www.harrisoncameras.net/productdetail.kmod?Productid=10949 Unlike the D3100 you can use older Nikon AF lenses on this model so lots more used lenses to choose from.
 
Last edited:
I'll declare my bias up front, I am a canon user and my preference here would be.. The canon! But I will back that up slightly...

As you're on a budget, I think the canon has a distinct advantage in terms of building up a lens collection going forward. The problem with the d3100 (and most cheaper Nikons) is that it's not compatible with most of Nikon's older, and therefore cheaper, AF lenses. The canon on the other hand has the same EF mount they introduced in 1986 and can use literally any canon AF lens, meaning you have a lot more choice on the used market, and even in newer lenses.

As an example - many people starting out with a DSLR like to upgrade to a "prime" lens after a while. Canon's standard 50mm lens is very popular and very cheap at just £70-80 brand new, and although it's built cheaply (to the same design since 1989) it's optically excellent.

Nikon have a very similar lens for the same sort of money but guess what - the D3100 can't use it (at least not with AF) - for that you have to pay around £100 more for the newer version with a motor. I was quite shocked when I found that out, because when I (more or less accidentally) bought a canon 18 months ago it was the cheap 50mm lens that really made me fall in love with the camera about a year later, and improved my photography no end - whereas if I'd bought the Nikon, is simply not have been able to justify that cost and would still be stuck with the slow zoom it came with.
 
Petri said:
I'll declare my bias up front, I am a canon user and my preference here would be.. The canon! But I will back that up slightly...

As you're on a budget, I think the canon has a distinct advantage in terms of building up a lens collection going forward. The problem with the d3100 (and most cheaper Nikons) is that it's not compatible with most of Nikon's older, and therefore cheaper, AF lenses. The canon on the other hand has the same EF mount they introduced in 1986 and can use literally any canon AF lens, meaning you have a lot more choice on the used market, and even in newer lenses.

As an example - many people starting out with a DSLR like to upgrade to a "prime" lens after a while. Canon's standard 50mm lens is very popular and very cheap at just £70-80 brand new, and although it's built cheaply (to the same design since 1989) it's optically excellent.

Nikon have a very similar lens for the same sort of money but guess what - the D3100 can't use it (at least not with AF) - for that you have to pay around £100 more for the newer version with a motor. I was quite shocked when I found that out, because when I (more or less accidentally) bought a canon 18 months ago it was the cheap 50mm lens that really made me fall in love with the camera about a year later, and improved my photography no end - whereas if I'd bought the Nikon, is simply not have been able to justify that cost and would still be stuck with the slow zoom it came with.
Click to expand...

But Nikon do have a lovely 35mm F1.8 lens that is better suited for every day use ? 50mm on Dx sensor doesn't offer a normal view. It act as a telephoto lens. For Dx camera, nikon offers better budget lens options.
 
Hi there. I am a proud owner of a 1100d and as a beginer myself I love it. It allows me to get some idea of photography without my camera getting to complicated on me. I find it so easy to use and its a great size. A bit of warning though and that is I do not doubt that before long you will be wanting more so yes I think £ 300 for the camera and lens is good but it diddent take me long before my camera bag was getting full and my pockets getting empty. But if you find that you enjoy it its well worth it.
Good luck on your decision and well done for you for not just 'jumping in' with your camera choice
 
I started of with a D3000 about 4 years ago and its great. The only reason I went Nikon is a knew other people (most notably my father) who have nikons. This can be very handy for borrowing lens!
If this isn't a consideration then as others have said just try them out but to be honest I doubt you would be disappointed with either as somebody starting from scratch.

Oh and welcome! You will find loads of great info and advice on here!
 
Too much is made of the Nikon lens issue.

Almost every lens since 1998 is AF-S and fully compatible with the D3100. There are a handful of older lenses that will not autofocus, but for the most part, replacements have been made that will. Yes they can be a little more expensive, but often they are also more modern in look and feel, have better glass and are a lot faster.

To me its a complete non issue and for someone just starting out who is likely to start with the kit lens, then move on to a budget telephoto and maybe a short prime, its also a non issue.
 
"Almost" every lens - meaning there are caveats of course. The fact is, regardless of release dates, Nikon are still producing and selling lenses today at various price points which aren't compatible with the D3100 and similar. For a newbie starting out it can be quite confusing, and it makes used bargains harder to find too.

Nikon's 35mm prime is around twice the price of the Canon 50mm I mentioned, and dearer also than Canon's comparable 40mm pancake. It's true the 50mm isn't a "standard" lens on a crop body, but it's a beaut of a portrait lens and gives a very affordable entry into the world of sharp, bright, fast aperture primes.
 
Buying a camera based on one particular budget prime lens is great IF that is the main lens you would use AND you don't want to buy any other lenses. Some people prefer zooms you know...
 
I had the 1100D for a few months. It takes nice pictures, but the limited dynamic range often caused colours to be blown out (e.g. green patches of grass to appear straw coloured) for me. There is a setting in the menus which increases the DR a bit, and it is not on by default, I tried to use that and it helped a bit, but in the end I decided that it had been a mistake to buy the cheapest available DSLR. That's of course for the type of pictures I take, I like strong light contrasts.

I also found the less-than-100% viewfinder made it difficult to avoid including lighter patches at the edges of the image into the image, which again with the limited DR cause not-so-nice colours. OTOH, people using the display won't have that problem.

I'm not going to say 'buy Nikon because they currently have the better sensor', because I think you'd have to get a 3200 for that to be true, and in that price range Canon also has better cameras. But I'd suggest you indeed try to find another £150.- or £200, and buy a more expensive camera. For me, in the end going for the cheapest available DSLR isn't the right way to go.

There is BTW a very nice Tamron lens 17-50 mm (the non-VC version) which got excellent reviews for the price, maybe that would be a better purchase than one of the kit lenses. In general, you should not limit your lens choice to the Canon (or Nikon) brands. The third party suppliers can have very good lenses too, at considerably lower prices. Reading reviews on the internet is a good idea, and not only one, but several.
 
Last edited:
Having owned the 1100D I can say that it is a very nice little camera, great for people new to photography. It doesn't feel as good as the d3100 but it's certainly quite robust. It gives nice picture quality but lacks in dynamic range as AchimT said. Also, the macro on the kit lens I've found very good indeed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top