First D-SLR

[rajarshi038]

Hi, I am a new member in this forum... I have grown my interests in photography recently... I want to buy a D-SLR... I am confused between Canon EOS 1000D and the NIKON D3100... The lower price of canon is attracting me towards it... But i want to know that whether the minor differences in them with will matter much to a beginner like me... Please help me

[rpcrowe]

The Canon 1000D is a bare-bones basic camera. However, the price (at least in the USA) is pretty well unbelievably low.

The decision between the two cameras (and between the 1000D and the XSi or other Rebel models) simply depends on how much camera you want (or need) and what you will be doing with the camera. It also depends in the thickness of your wallet.

Here is a comparison of the 1000D and the D3100...



http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon_EO...vs-Nikon_D3100

BY the way, you can compare virtually any two cameras side by side using this site...

Although the D3100 seems to win this contest, there are other Rebel (series) cameras which probably could be compared against the Nikon D3100 because they are in a closer price range.

[rajarshi038]

I have gone through the site... The video shooting capability in the D3100 has increased the huge difference in scores... it is not a requirement for me... So i want a review from someone who has used the cameras,because i have gone through every possible websites... My budget is 25,000(INR). Canon 1000D costs 22500(INR) and Nikon D3100 costs 29,900(INR)... But if the image quality varies much then i am ready to spend a little more...

[rajarshi038]

Actually you are the person I am looking for .. I am still in learning stage ... I am a student and within 3 to 4 years I'll be able afford a good DSLR ... Is the 1000D good enough for learners??

[The Blue Boy]

Hi Rajarshi, welcome to the forums.

When you go through the makes and the different price ranges, most of these models are very similar. What I mean by that is you won't find much difference in image quality between any one of them. As the prices go up through any given range you'll get faster frame rates more megapixels and sturdier build qualities. I'll say what I always say, if you can get to a camera store and have a feel of different models then so much the better.

The only other thing to consider is that you will be buying into a system. Lens choices is important and both Canon and Nikon have good ranges.

[inkista]

Just a note. The D3100 is the most recent entry-level DSLR in the Nikon line-up, but the Canon 1000D is one generation back. The current Canon in that spot is the 1100D (T3).

[Donald]

I have gone through the site... The video shooting capability in the D3100 has increased the huge difference in scores... it is not a requirement for me... So i want a review from someone who has used the cameras,because i have gone through every possible websites... My budget is 25,000(INR). Canon 1000D costs 22500(INR) and Nikon D3100 costs 29,900(INR)... But if the image quality varies much then i am ready to spend a little more...

Rajarshi

As Mark has written, you will not see much difference in the quality of the images produced by either camera. The important thing at this stage as that you work within your budget. You can always grow your system in the future, by which time you will have a much better idea of how much money you wish to devote to this hobby.

As you wish to expand your equipment in the future, you will have plenty of choice, whether that is Canon or Nikon.

[MrB]

Rajarshi, have you ruled out other makers of DSLRs?

If you want a camera for photography rather than video then you might also consider the Pentax K-r. It is good value - a lot of camera for your money:

http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon-1100D-vs-Pentax_K-r
http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon_D3100-vs-Pentax_K-r

Philip

[krispix]

Hi Rajarshi,
I seem to remember reading a review of these two (along with the Sony, Pentax line-up). The Nikon came out on top with the Canon second, but I suspect this was just because the Nikon has a few more features. In terms of image quality etc. there was nothing to choose between them. As in all cases, the deciding factor is going to be the glass on the front. If you buy the Canon then spend 3 times that amount on a 'L' series lens the net result will knock spots off the rest with their 'kit' lenses. Like everything in this life; You get what you pay for.

[MrB]

Hi Rajarshi,
If you buy the Canon then spend 3 times that amount on a 'L' series lens the net result will knock spots off the rest with their 'kit' lenses. Like everything in this life; You get what you pay for.

It is to be hoped that Canon was singled out only as an example. Any company's high quality lens (including those from third parties) is likely to "knock the spots off" any company's kit lens.

However, if all one can afford to buy is a body with a kit lens, then it is worth considering the following. The kit lenses from Canon and Nikon have front elements (including the filter attachment thread) that spin when they focus, making more difficult the use of filters such as a polariser - an unnecessary "feature" for which those companies should be embarrassed, but one rarely mentioned by reviewers (and others) wearing their CaNikon blinkers.

Philip

[krispix]

It is to be hoped that Canon was singled out only as an example. Any company's high quality lens (including those from third parties) is likely to "knock the spots off" any company's kit lens.

However, if all one can afford to buy is a body with a kit lens, then it is worth considering the following. The kit lenses from Canon and Nikon have front elements (including the filter attachment thread) that spin when they focus, making more difficult the use of filters such as a polariser - an unnecessary "feature" for which those companies should be embarrassed, but one rarely mentioned by reviewers (and others) wearing their CaNikon blinkers.

Philip

Hi Philip,

You are, of course, absolutely correct. I was just making a point using the 'L' series as an example. Don't knock the kit lens though, for someone starting out they are a low cost solution which produce surprisingly good results. OK, they may not suit you or I, who use CPLs, Grads etc. on a daily basis - but, for a beginner who has yet to discover these delights, they're fine.

[shreds]

Of course using screw in filters has a second disadvantage. You need lots of filters for different thread sizes.

A slot in system means that one filter and carrier, is all that is needed for your whole kit, provided you have the simple converters to fit to the individual lenses. A cheaper solution if you have a number of different lenses.

[MrB]

Don't knock the kit lens though, for someone starting out they are a low cost solution which produce surprisingly good results.

Chris, I am sure that you are right - the optical quality of the kit lenses is fine, but I still think that Canon and Nikon deserve to be ridiculed for their poor design. Other makers of kit lenses that do not rotate - Panasonic, Pentax, Olympus, etc. - prove that the spinning filter mount is an unnecessary and absurd design fault. But few people ever criticise this failing, probably because they have never thought outside the Canon and Nikon boxes. Another example of politically correct spin, perhaps?!

Philip

[Donald]

Do Canon still offer the 17-85 IS USM f4-5.6 as a kit lens? Mine is wonderful and it doesn't rotate.

[Colin Southern]

Actually you are the person I am looking for .. I am still in learning stage ... I am a student and within 3 to 4 years I'll be able afford a good DSLR ... Is the 1000D good enough for learners??

As a thought, why not just pickup a good 2nd hand DSLR -- something like a Canon 30D or 40D? You'll get a better camera for less $$$.

[PeterK]

As a thought, why not just pickup a good 2nd hand DSLR -- something like a Canon 30D or 40D? You'll get a better camera for less $$$.

I agree, especially that e.g. 40D is two "classes" higher than 1000D. However, if you occasionally want to make some movies, you should still consider buying one of the recent models. Older DSLRs don't have this feature. I own a Canon 500D with 18-55 kit lens and I'm really happy of it. The lens still isn't what I'd be fully satisfied with, but it's worth like 20-30 pounds so it's no wonder.

[Colin Southern]

I agree, especially that e.g. 40D is two "classes" higher than 1000D. However, if you occasionally want to make some movies, you should still consider buying one of the recent models. Older DSLRs don't have this feature.

Hi Peter,

I hear what you're saying, but personally, I'd rather have the better ergonomics of a xxD series camera 100% of the time, than have to suffer the poor ergonomics of a xxxD / xxxxD series camera 100% of the time just to mitigate the 0.1% of the time that I wanted to shoot a movie.

[Paul in PDX]

Donald

I'm not sure the 17-85mm gets packaged as a kit lens anymore other than when you get a body and lens at a discount. That is the lens i selected with my 7d about a year ago using that deal from B and H.

Paul