Sell the 60D for a D3100

[adrian888]

Cost wise, the 60D cost more than D3100, if you sell your 60D and get D3100, you will have some spare
cash left over. This is provided that you have no preference on Cannon nor Nikon.

[Noice]

this shoudlnt even be an argument. im sure the person who is asking for advice doesnt really have enough invested gear to consider.

60d is way better than the d3100
unless ofcourse youre keeping it on the green square, then it doesnt really matter.

[inkista]

...unless there is a way to mount a Nikon lens to a Canon DSLR body or have I missed that point too?

Yes, you can put Nikon lenses onto a Canon dSLR body with an adapter ring (the reverse is not true), but there are limitations.

1) If you're trying to put a Nikon G lens onto a Canon, you need a special adapter that will give you aperture control, since there's no aperture ring on the lens. (16:9 and Novoflex make these, and they're expensive). Most of the current Nikon zoom lenses are Gs.

2) You'll have no autofocus, even with a special adapter.

3) You won't be able to control the aperture from the camera body. (This means you're limited to Av or M mode when shooting, and you'll be using stop-down, vs. wide-open metering. If you are an oldtimey film SLR shooter, this is no big deal. As a digital P&S newbie, though, could be more of a PITA than you wanted to deal with).

4) There will be holes in the EXIF lens information: focal length, max. aperture, aperture setting, etc.

Nikon F -> Canon EOS adapaters are only about mechanically adapting the mount. Any electronic communication between the body and lens is completely blocked.

Generally, this method works best if the lens you wanted to adapt is a manual-focus lens ANYWAY. That way, you're not losing a lot of function. And weirdly, you'll actually have accurate stop-down metering with a manual non-CPU Nikkor on a Canon, which you won't have if you go to a D3100/D90. Also, using pre-AI lenses is no sweat, whereas using them on Nikons can actually break the D90 and above bodies.

[dake]

If I'm correct, the D3100 is an entry level DSLR. The Canon 60D is a level up from that. If you are new to photography and end up wanting to get more serious about, you would probably want to trade up from the D3100 but with the 60D you would not have to trade up. My advice would be to go with 60D (a very good camera). Oh, by the way, I use Canon;

[PopsPhotos]

I was just being flippant, Ron. Perhaps I should have made that a little more clear.

Pops

[RonH]

I was just being flippant, Ron. Perhaps I should have made that a little more clear.

Pops

So was I mate Nice to have a bit of humour around

[Michhappysnapper]

Complete beginner myself with a lovely shiny new 60D that knows way more than me, but I wouldn't swap it for anything or anyone. Hoping we will "grow together" and loving the journey so far........

[Donald]

Complete beginner myself with a lovely shiny new 60D that knows way more than me, but I wouldn't swap it for anything or anyone. Hoping we will "grow together" and loving the journey so far........

Brilliant. Wonderful attitude. With that approach, you're guaranteed to grow together.

[The Blue Boy]

Sell the 60D? Good luck.

I kid, I kid.

I think all the above comments ring true as usual. And I often envy people who have this kind of a choice taken away from them, as it's always a bit of a minefield. Usually it boils down to either Canon or Nikon. But we should never overlook Olympus or even Pentax.

[stuck]

I'm a bit late to this party but it's been interesting reading.

I'm an amateur and even though I'm a long time Pentax SLR user I wouldn't class myself as anything more than a picture taker. I've always used transparency film but it's getting hard to buy at retail and the cost goes ever upwards.

I've been chewing over Canon vs Nikon DLSR for several months, in anticipation of a savings windfall due soon. I was seriously thinking about going way over the top and buying a full frame model, either the D5mkII or the D700 but had no idea which way to jump. Then, unexpectedly I inherited a Canon 400D.

I know the 400D can't be compared to either of of the FF models I've been drooling over but I'm glad I've got it as it's made me realise I've got tons to learn about digital.

So to return to the original question at the top of this thread, I would say keep the 60D. Yes you might find it a bit overwhelming. Yes others more experienced around you might rubbish it because it's not their favourite but as it was a gift you've got nothing to lose just lots to learn.

stuck

[Colin Southern]

I'm a bit late to this party but it's been interesting reading.

I'm an amateur and even though I'm a long time Pentax SLR user I wouldn't class myself as anything more than a picture taker. I've always used transparency film but it's getting hard to buy at retail and the cost goes ever upwards.

I've been chewing over Canon vs Nikon DLSR for several months, in anticipation of a savings windfall due soon. I was seriously thinking about going way over the top and buying a full frame model, either the D5mkII or the D700 but had no idea which way to jump. Then, unexpectedly I inherited a Canon 400D.

I know the 400D can't be compared to either of of the FF models I've been drooling over but I'm glad I've got it as it's made me realise I've got tons to learn about digital.

So to return to the original question at the top of this thread, I would say keep the 60D. Yes you might find it a bit overwhelming. Yes others more experienced around you might rubbish it because it's not their favourite but as it was a gift you've got nothing to lose just lots to learn.

stuck

Surprisingly, Image Quality ISN'T one of the big differences between older entry-level cameras like the 400D and more modern & upmarket models. As a rule, the more up-market models will simply have things like more features (many that we will never use) - better build quality - longer shutter life - better ergonomics etc.

Re: FF -v- Crop - A lot has been written (by me and others) - but the bottom line is FF can be a blessing - a curse - or make no difference what-so-ever (depending on lens selection). Also, don't forget that in terms of the amount of information captured, the Mega-Pixel count of two respective (but different format) cameras also has to be taken into account (eg with a 200mm lens attached, many would assume that a FF 21MP Canon 1Ds3 would be at a disadvantage to a 10MP Canon 1D3 with the same lens if shooting something far away (because the 1D3 has a 1.3x crop factor, it's equivalent focal length would be 260mm), but due to the differences in MP counts, the 1Ds3 actually out-resolves the 1D3 by around 30% ... not even close

In terms of Nikon -v- Canon ... honestly ... it really doesn't make any difference. Both manufacturers make great Cameras with nearly identical features at a given price point. So don't think of one as being "right" and the other "wrong" (and stay awake all night worrying about getting the wrong one). In reality there's a HUGE overlap between them. Some suggest handling each and see which one feels better, but I don't think that even that's particularly helpful as I find it's just like jumping into a rental car -- everything feels weird for a day and then it feels normal no matter what you're driving -- same for cameras.

Just be aware that whatever system you DO decide to go with, you'll probably be stuck with it due to the high cost of changing lenses and accessories. Without wishing to sway you too much (and I'll tell you now, I'm a Canon shooter), it is my understanding that as a rule, Canon lenses are a little cheaper than Nikon, and Canon have a bigger range of modern lenses.