Nikon D3100 or Canon 450D?

C

Colin-Cr

Suspended / Banned
Messages
8
Name
Colin
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all
A newbie here, I'd just like to say hello and ask a question if I may.

Looking around at getting a nearly new DSLR and two cameras have struck my eye at similar prices, one is a very little used Nikon D3100, the other is a refurbished Canon 450D.

I'm not looking to stir up a Nikon vs Canon war here honestly. I'm just looking for your thoughts on the perceived strengths/weaknesses of these two madels as an example so that I can get some better idea as to what I'm looking at.

Just for background, my last DSLR was an EOS300D but i've lapsed into compact for a while, I now want to get a bit more creative and be able to have a choice of lenses but not spend a fortune.

Thanks

CC
 
What do your friends use? Lens sharing is a big part of photography

D3100 has much newer guts than the 450D, but have a look for second hand D5000s in local camera shops as you can probably pick them up at the same price - friend got his for £375 with kit lens. I found the D3100 to be deliberately gimped in some ways - although if you are after video then it's the best for your money out there.

I'm not that up on my canon vs nikon stuff, I think nikon build is supposed to be better (not sure if it is with the lower models) and people prefer canon colours. One thing that certainly is better on canons is the light metering.
 
Take a look at the lens ranges.
Both canon and nikon offer comprehensive and very good lens ranges, but each makes a few gems that the other doesn't rival.

For example in the lower budget range, nikon has the 35mm f/1.8 AF-s DX which has superb image quality as a 50mm equivalent. Canon has the 70-200 f/4L which is sharper than anything else in it's zoom/price range (even sharper than a fair few more expensive zooms).

Have you considered any other brands as well? Sony and Pentax make some superb entry levels (with the shared advantage of in camera IS). You won't find a better entry level than the pentax K-x.
 
Thanks for those points so far,

Taking those into account I'm definitely leaning towards the Canon, lens choice plus compatibilty with friends is making it look the best choice. I have always hankered after a Nikon but never quite gone there, I probably feel, rightly or wrongly, that you need to go to the pricey end of the range to get the "Nikon benefits"
 
Colin-Cr said:
Thanks for those points so far,

Taking those into account I'm definitely leaning towards the Canon, lens choice plus compatibilty with friends is making it look the best choice. I have always hankered after a Nikon but never quite gone there, I probably feel, rightly or wrongly, that you need to go to the pricey end of the range to get the "Nikon benefits"
Click to expand...

I thought that was the case for Canon's, the cheaper models felt always a bit plasticy and toyish. In the past to get a nice built out of a Canon you could get it on a 700-800 40D-50D now you wont even get it then. You need a 7D which is another 400£. On the other hand the 800£ D7000 though not built like a tank it feels very solid. Problem is for 800£ you can get a K-5 that is amazingly built (metal not plastic) yet smaller, lighter and better specced... Same story for the K-r and you can also put cheaper in the advantages.

That is why I switched...
 
Just simply scanning photo mags and online sites, there seems to be a distinct lack of freely available Pentax lenses compared with Nikon or Canon, is this a real or perceived problem?
 
In my opinion i'd go for the 450D. I'm a big Canon Fan.

I suppose it's what you want to use it for, i mean i know for a fact because i've been to many motorsport events - there aren't many people who used a Nikon at motorsport - mostly Canon.

Canon's have better light metering and colours in my opinion - which to be honest are two of the key elements to a photograph. Pixels only really matter for printing ( just so you know )!

Both brands have a wide range of lenses. Canon make very good lenses and a wide variety of lenses - I don't know anything about Nikon though.

Ofcourse, you'll probably be drawn to Nikon's by the neat and tidy design and the features that they shout about. However, " don't judge a book by its cover " - canon's might be lacking in some areas, but they excell in others.

" Nikon for show, Canon for Pro! "

I wonder if that helps... lol
 
uh huh, I think you won rabid fanboy of the year for that post.
 
Colin-Cr said:
Just simply scanning photo mags and online sites, there seems to be a distinct lack of freely available Pentax lenses compared with Nikon or Canon, is this a real or perceived problem?
Click to expand...

Funnily enough the same exact subject cropped up on a Pentax user forum. There is definitely less second hand stuff even on pentax dedicated sites people do not seem to be selling much of their pentax stuff unless they jump ship to another brand. There is also fewer Pentax branded lenses than there are Nikkor/Canons but that is to be expected.

However although it might not seem that way at first glance there are plenty of quality lenses to cover all ranges from UWA to tele. Maybe not exotic stuff like on Canon's lineup of uber tele lenses but then if you know you need one of them you wouldn't be asking about a 450D vs D3100.

I bought a 40mm just a few days ago, waiting for a 50-135, bought a 10-20 Sigma just today and I have found a decent priced second hand Tamron 17-50 thought I might give a go to the 17-70 Sigma OS which I can also buy pretty much straight away. So I am not noticing a distinct lack of readily available lenses for my kind of photography.

What you will find with Pentax that you will not find elsewhere apart from the m4/3s system is some brilliant pancake primes. The D7000 weighs about 100grams more than my K-5 with any of the Pentax primes fitted on and you get 3 of them plus some other tiny primes to fit the in betweens. :)

There are obviously plenty of Tamron/Sigma stuff around too and if you wouldn't mind MF then your options can expand dramatically.
 
But - your argument for getting one is that the body is cheaper, how much more expensive are the lenses?
 
In my opinion the Canon would be the way to go.
I think there are a lot of decent lenses available for both cameras, both new and used, which is going to be good for purchasing, but if you can borrow friends lenses as well, that's even better.
Also if you've used a Canon 300D before you shouldn't have any trouble working out the operations of the 450D and will be able to get shooting straight away.
 
I think prices are very comparable where comparable offers exist. 16-50 2.8 is 500-600 neither the Nikkor nor the Canon are that cheap, 35mm 140, 70mm 2.4 400 or there abouts (comparable to 85mm 1.8s a bit more expensive and a bit slower but much more convenient) I can go on but there are decently priced lenses and expensive lenses like the other brands.

The kit lenses that are there from the start and for pretty much free with a k-r are very good as well.
 
inlineadam said:
" Nikon for show, Canon for Pro! "
Click to expand...

Speaking as a Canon user that statement is a complete pile of sheep's droppings; they each have their own merits.


Back to the 450 v 3100 issue..

If I were starting from scratch I'd be very tempted by the 3100, apart from the fact that it has no in-body autofocus motor. That's not an issue if you stick to buying the newer range of lenses, however it's something to be aware of.

If you measured the 3100 against it's direct equivalent however, the 550D, I'd probably go for Canon.

It really does depend what you want to use the camera for though. There is a very ( and I mean very) sweeping generalisation that you go to Canon for sports & action or Nikon for portraits, art and landscape. That's mainly swayed by the lens range strengths and a few outmoded ideas about sensors and AF. What is probably true is that the lower range Nikons fair better at higher ISOs than the Canons do.

If (and I mean if) you can afford it, I'd be more tempted to look at a second hand 40D or D90, stretching to a 50D if possible. The first is a beautiful camera and can easily be picked up for around £350 second hand in very good nick.
 
There's a D90 in the classifieds here for £360 which is a total bargain, THAT would be a good camera to get!

Back to the D3100 vs 450D I'd probably be swayed by the Nikon, if for nothing more than it is newer and has better ISO ability and a good (for a DSLR) video mode, it also has a few more direct access features than the older bottom of the range Nikons. Combine it with the excellent but cheap 35mm f1.8 DX lens and you'll (almost) never run out of available light.

Also, unless your friends have a lot of good quality Canon lenses then that argument is slightly flawed as if you get to the position where you want to borrow lenses, if they have the lower end ones you'll probably jsut buy them yourself and in that case the Nikons are as cheap as the Canons :)

As said though, if you were comparing the D3100 against the 550D, the answer would be different!

edit: should probably add, when I bought my first DSLR I went in wanting a 450D and came out with a D60 as it felt so much nicer and there wasn't that much difference in performance, the D3100 is a fair bit better than the D60 so I've no reason to expect my choice would change...
 
Last edited:
DemiLion said:
If you measured the 3100 against it's direct equivalent however, the 550D, I'd probably go for Canon.
Click to expand...

Narp, the canon rival to the D3100 is the 1100D, 550D is med range.
 
Lots of food for thought there, thanks for all of the input.

Now I need to look at the option of a very good, but used, higher end camera at a "bargain price" as well!

It looks like there may be some good deals to be had in the classifieds but I've got to wait a bit and post a few more before I get there!

I should have known that asking a question here would end up with me having more questions to ask myself than answers.

Thanks again people for all of the views.
 
Hi first time poster :wave: and also new to DSLR's or any SLR's come to that. I was just about to ask exactly the same question when i noticed this thread. Now, my use would be mainly for motorcycles, racing and still pictures at motorcycle shows. Oh and scenery shots when out on a ride. Swayed by the various 450D packages on Fleabay, which would probably give me the set up i needed as regards to zoom lenses. But cant help thinking that the Nikon being a lot newer has more bells and whistles. and choosing a lens myself would be more fun? But then i would be on a very limited budget. Mmmm decisions decisions, just when i thought I'd made my mind up i read something that throws the whole debate up in the air. :bonk:

Whats the deal with the Classified section? I can understand a lot of people join just to sell equipment and don't contribute, but sellers are missing out on us noobs buying up potential bargains.... Anything good in there? :naughty:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top