Sell the 60D for a D3100

[Deucalion]

EDIT by Donald

Dear All

One of our newer colleagues posted this comment in the New member thread.

I thought it would stir up a good debate so have moved this part of the post into this new thread.

Reginald got a Canon 60D as a gift. And now he's had some advice from a friend

Let battle commence!

quick question if I may trouble you, a friend of mine who I think has more experience in photography told me that I should just sell my camera and get a Nikon D3100 w/c she says is better than the one given to me as a gift, is she right in her suggestion?

[Donald]

(Bump to get post onto lists)

[stevewe88]

oooh, fighting talk

The friend is quite obviously deluded. Just ask any Canon user.

Whatever you decide to do be sure to make the right decision for you and nobody else because it is far more difficult to change manufacturer once you have amassed a whole lot of kit.

Steve

[jiro]

My advice... Sell your friend! Seriously, it's not just the camera that makes the shot (thought it helps to be creative if you have the camera with the most bling on it), it's the combination of the photographer and the camera. Any of the 2 would be very good to start with. Personally I'd be very happy if I can upgrade my D70 to any of it. LOL! In short - keep the gift and start using it!

[ktuli]

I think some more background is needed here....

If someone would hand me a brand new Nikon camera, I would sell it in a heartbeat. However, the reason for that is not that I have anything against Nikon, but rather I already own Canon stuff. So a Nikon is inherently less valuable to me than it might be to someone else. I'd honestly turn around the money I made selling it and buy some new Canon toy to add to my bag. But again, this is only based on already being in Camp C versus Camp N. The reverse is probably true for millions of people.

If you're just starting out, and someone tosses a free camera and some lenses in your lap, would you sell it? Well, that's a trickier question. Consider right off the bat, you're losing a minimum of 25% of the face value of the camera you have just to resell it... worse if you trade it in for credit. So you're going to have to contribute money out of pocket to get a comparable camera from the other manufacturer, unless of course the free camera is of higher value than the one you want, but then why would you voluntarily downgrade?

Bottom line, if you want to donate a Canon 60D to me, I'll prove my argument by not selling it. I will turn around and tell my Canon Rebel XT, but I'd keep the 60D and my 7D for myself.

Donated 60Ds should be addressed to....

- Bill

[Wirefox]

A better camera? This is very bad advice. This is comparing a prosumer camera with entry level again. They cost more for a reason. If the person considering this is strapped for cash then maybe. But lets get real. As someone with more than a passing interest in photography why would I even consider ditching a semi-pro camera for an entry level camera. Forget the ums and arrs between canon and the dark side. Just because the Nikon is tagged entry level certainly does not make the 60D any less manageable for a beginner because it is further up the scale.

But if people have cash to sling around then so be it. If they are serious about photography they will be ditching a D3100 that has low resale value in a years time for higher cost body. And imagine her having to grow a beard and wear sandals with socks.....I will stick with canon

[mark4583]

Canon and Nikon both make fine Camera's and lense, I use a Nikon D70s and a D300 mainly because all the lense I had for my film camera's will work on my digital, Im not sure how Canon does theres as far as interchanging film to digital, but I still have my F1 and A1 Canons that I use while stationed overseas and there still fine camera's.
I would suggest to go look at them, hold them , see how they feel. either way you wont go wrong, buy what you like not what someone else likes, its your money not theres and it can get expensive.

[Donald]

With great respect to your friend, Reginald, I cannot fathom out what the basis is for such advice unless she is totally devoted Nikon user who thinks Canon is a plaque wrought upon the world. I don't know what Nikon model numbers mean and it wasn't until Steve (Wirefox) posted above that I went onto the site of my retailer and checked.

There is, in my opinion, no comparison. As Steve writes, they are two models aimed at totally different markets. I can only surmise that your friend may have thought you so inexperienced and unlikely to want to advance sufficiently, that you would be content remain with the entry level class of camera - which may have been a perfectly legitimate think to say from her point of view.

If you have ambition to develop your knowledge and skill and feel that photography is something you wish to pursue with some degree of seriousness, then I suggest that the 60D is where you want to be.

[rpcrowe]

I don't want to start a Canon vs. Nikon family feud. I simply want to say a couple of things about the different Canon camera models and also say that I will always prefer a prosumer camera to a entry level DSLR.

The entry level Canon Rebel cameras are often called xx0D models because they have number designators such as 350D and 500D. These have become excellent cameras at very good prices and have very decent high ISO capability as well as video (if video rings your chimes - it doesn't ring mine!).

However, they are not quite up to the flexibility of the prosumer cameras which are often called x0D models because they have designators such as 50D and 60D. The control systems on the x0D cameras are, to me, more enjoyable with which to shoot. The x0D models have other niceties which I prefer.

However, the final image result from most any 1.6x camera is pretty much the same unless you need high speed burst shooting or are shooting at very high ISO levels at which the latest camera versions rule supreme. Another factor might be higher pixel counts but, they are, IMO, highly overrated unless you want to do extreme cropping or make very large size prints.

Camera companies such as Nikon and Canon have (IMO) pretty well maxed out the still image quality of their 1.6x cameras and will now be selling new cameras based on the additional bells and whistles on the cameras, such as video, ultra high ISO capability and articulating LCD screens.

IMO, the most important determination of image quality stems from the lens which you are using to acquire your imagery. A less expensive or older camera mounted with the highest grade lens will outshine a more expensive camera equipped with a lesser lens. This is especially true when working at the edges of the envelope, such as shooting wide-open or shooting at maximum or minimum aperture.

There is one advantage to Canon 1.6x cameras from the 20D and 300D onwards: These cameras can function with any EOS (auto-focus) lens from the earliest to the latest. You have a plethora of lenses from which to choose, both new and used, which can be used on a 60D camera. As an example, I have recently purchased a used Canon 135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus lens for one hundred U.S. dollars. This lens was one of the original Canon EOS autofocus lenses and was introduced in the mid-1980's. I am not recommending that a person look for or buy this lens, but simply illustrating the variety of used lenses compatible with your 60D; sometimes at very tempting prices...

[Colin Southern]

Approaching this from a slightly different angle ...

Some people exhibit "brand loyalty" with more passion than terrorists or religious extremists! "Apple -v- PC" is one traditional example ("even though the programs are identical, they're just so much easier to use on a Mac!"), and "Nikon -v- Canon" is another ... "Ford -v- Holden" is yet another ("I'd rather push a Ford than drive a Holden"). Unfortunately, it's seldom based on anything logical or scientific, as I suspect the case is here.

Put another way, if put 50 photos taken with the Nikon and 50 photos taken with the Canon into a pile, I doubt anyone could sort them into respective piles with greater than 50% accuracy (ie "pure chance").

[spngr311]

Do you have friends that have Canon or Nikons? If you aren't partial to one brand or have previous experience with it, I'd look to see what your friends have. Just so you can borrow their stuff. Out of my four photographer friends that I shoot with regularly, only one has a Nikon and he's always bummed that he can't borrow my fisheye or my other buddies tele.

[inkista]

Completely aside from the brand issues, the Canon 60D is more the equivalent of a Nikon D90 or D7000 than it is a D3100. The 60D is a mid-tier prosumer camera, and has a lot more features than the D3100, as do the D90 and D7000. So, in this specific instance, I'd say keep the 60D. You'll have autofocus with all EOS-mount lenses. You'll have a DoF preview button and interchangeable focus screens. You can white balance by Kelvins. You'll have true mirror lock-up. You'll have metering with manual lenses. You'll have dual-wheel controls, and a flash master in the pop-up. All things a D3100 won't give you.

The only reason I could see to sell the 60D and go for the D3100 is if you didn't give a crap about the 60D's extra features, have no cash to spend, and you wanted to recoup enough money to get one more lens.

[Colin Southern]

If you aren't partial to one brand or have previous experience with it, I'd look to see what your friends have. Just so you can borrow their stuff.

Brutal ... but so honest

[bambleweeney]

As a confirmed Nikon user I'd have to say .... keep the Canon !!! It's probably full of features that may be totally meaningless right now but in a year or so when you know what they do, and your pictures are better than your friend's you may well end up regretting getting rid of the Canon.

[Letrow]

First of all money wise, the wisest decision is probably to keep the Canon. But I think that emotion/feeling for a certain brand plays a role in this decision process as well. I agree with Colin that if you shoot a number of pictures with the Canon and the Nikon, then throw them together, you would have a hard time picking out the two different brands. But the way the camera and the lenses feel, the way it handles, the menu structure, that would on the long term (for me) override the rational decision that I should make if it was just about the money.

I like Nikon, always did, in fact I started with a Nikon and never changed. I Like the way they are built, I like the menu structure, I like the grip on the camera etc. A Canon might be just as good, but it would start to irritate me after a while. Had I started out with a Canon it might have been the other way around, or not, I just don't know.
But in my view, that is what this is all about in the long run.

[Deucalion]

Hi everyone,

thank you for all your comments, I really appreciate it... I admit I am really new to all this and your thoughts on the subject actually echo a few comments from a few of my friends who are either interested in digital photography or into it. I think the comment made by my friend came about when I mentioned to her that there seems to be a whole lot of features in my 60D that I'm not using because I've been treating it like a point and shoot camera (going full auto whenever I take a picture).

I have never owned a DSLR camera I've owned a couple of different brand point and shoot cameras tho my last one being coincidentally a Canon Powershot SD1000, and yes I've heard the "pro Canon and pro Nikon" argument too from a few friends who own DSLRs, nine out of ten being all Nikon camera enthusiasts, and they keep telling me to trade it in or sell and get a Nikon camera, I find it funny because I have to keep reminding them that I didn't purchase the camera, it was a gift I rather like the comment made by Jiro (no its not about selling my friend, tho I have thot about it, could get me a new lens perhaps? ) but rather a combination of the camera and the guy/gal holding it and taking the shot.

and while I have no real preference at the moment, I think I'd go by way of the point presented by ktuli as this being my 1st DSLR camera and a gift as well I think I'll just stick with it since I haven't really made a considerable investment (yet ) to the brand, it being just the camera and the lens that came with it. so if I do keep it I'm probably gonna miss out on that brutal but honest point made spngr311 unless there is a way to mount a Nikon lens to a Canon DSLR body or have I missed that point too?

btw I answered your message Donald, but I don't know if I was able to actually send it, my sent folder doesn't seem to record sent items. thanks for clearing that filter question I asked in the new members post.

[ktuli]

Reginald,

Glad we could be of help.

And to answer your last question, yes there are adapters - but I have no experience trying them, so I'm not sure if there are cons associated with using them (though there probably are).

- Bill

[RonH]

This is a fun to watch thread ... you can see them fighting in the trenches
Go Nikon GO

[PopsPhotos]

This is a fun to watch thread ... you can see them fighting in the trenches
Go Nikon GO

That can be taken in a couple of different ways.

Pops

[RonH]

That can be taken in a couple of different ways.

Pops

Its mean't to be
I think Colin's earlier comment just about sums it up ... if I put 50 photos taken with the Nikon and 50 photos taken with the Canon into a pile, I doubt anyone could sort them into respective piles with greater than 50% accuracy (ie "pure chance").