First DSLR: Nikon D3100 vs Canon 550d

[Getafix]

Hi guys,

So i'm interested in buying my first DSLR (under 80k) and have narrowed it down to the following two: Nikon D3100 or Canon 550d.

Points in favor of D3100:

• Cheaper (52k vs 68k for the 550d)
• 11 point AF vs 9 point for the 550d
• Auto-focus in movie mode

Disadvantages:

• No focus motor body

Points in favor of 550d:

• Better LCD
• More megapixels (18 vs 14 for the D3100)
• Can connect external mic for videos
• Faster burst mode

Disadvantages:

• More expensive
• Will be replaced by 600d soon

So both cameras are pretty evenly matched. For now i'm leaning towards the Nikon D3100 but the only thing putting me off it is the lack of a focus motor body in the camera. This means that i will need to buy AF-S lenses which are more expensive.

So is it better to spend 16k more and get the 550d or save the money and get the D3100? The only thing i'm worried about is that eventually the D3100 will cost me more when i've improved my skills and buy new lenses.

 

[raheelc]

what will you be using the camera for? just photos? or videos too?

also remember that having more megapixels doesnt actually mean that the camera will produce better quality images...

 

[Getafix]

Mostly photos but sometimes videos as well i guess. I just found out that the 600d is available in karachi for 82k. Not really a fair comparison between it and the D3100 as the price difference is over 22k.

 

[raheelc]

i'd probably go with the nikon d3100 (i myself have a d5000, so i a have a bias towards nikon )...

 

[Getafix]

Yes so far i'm tempted to go with the D3100. Is it true that Nikon lens are more expensive than Canon lenses?

 

[raheelc]

i honestly havent researched the price differences between canon and nikon lenses...so i cant comment on that....But if i had to make a guess, i'd say nikon ones might be somewhat more expensive (considering that you'll have to buy AF-S lenses if you have a nikon camera)

 

[Getafix]

Well i did a little research and Nikon AF-S lenses are usually $100+ more than their Canon equivalents. So i guess the Canon might be more expensive initially but in the longer run it will be better off due to the cheaper lenses.

 

[Loki Odin]

A friend of mine said the D3100 is worth 54K alongwith the Basic lens kit.
Most of the comparisions i did show that D3100 is a great buy for photographers new to DSLR cameras,specially coz it's cheaper.

 

[opethian]

yar if u have some plans for future upgrade and lenses then dnt get any nikon other than these
d70s
d80
d90
d7000

rest all entry level or high end entry level including d3100 dnt have builtin autfocus motor and trust me abhe tou tum khareed lougay cause its cheaper than others but with d3100 u will stuck for the rest of ur life untill u have it ... and will keep searching for AF-S nikon lenses
and yes AF-S lenses r expensive ...
ghalib had d90 his body can run a cheap 7000 50mm 1.8f prime but for d3100 u wud need 50mm 1.4f AF-S which costs something like 20k

in between d3100 n 550d well 550d is a beast ... it has builtin motor also so u can use the oldest canon lenses which worth a dime n optically r much superior ...
550d has much better features then d3100
depth of field, bracketing, better sensor better image processor
in realworld performance u can see the difference lies in the person using it ...
i wud suggest if u have money for 550d then i wud say go for nikon d90 ... 64k ki body hai and 18-55mm VR lens u can buy in less than 10k ... dnt buy the 18-105mm which comes with it as kitlens ...

among ur options ... i wud suggest canon 550d (even i am using a nikon d40x) ...
even if u say right now keh mera lenses kharednay ka koi plan nahe but trust me once u will have a dslr u will be anxious to buy more lenses ...
if u have no plan to build a camera system n spend in future on lenses then dnt buy dslr at all ...
get a super zoom
if u have plans for future upgrades ... intend to spend on lenses ... go for canon 550 or nikon d90

keep one thing in mind ... lenses r expensive ... u will find more nikon users but trust me u will not see much nikon entry level users with an arsenal of lenses but in canon ... the story is different ... why??? cause u can snap an old canon EF-S mount lenses as old as 1960 and use it
among d3100 n 550d ... i wud never think about d3100 if i have money for 550d
haan if i have money for d3100 i wud rather get canon 1000D n spend on lenses ...

khair itni lambi post pata nahe tou nay parhni hai ya nahe ... but dnt buy these cheap entry level nikon dslrs ... which dnt have Autofocus motor in them ... agar laina he hai then spend money on Nikon d5000 ... its image quality is very very close to d90 n much much better than d3100 ...
regards
Babar!

---------- Post added at 11:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:36 PM ----------

Well i did a little research and Nikon AF-S lenses are usually $100+ more than their Canon equivalents. So i guess the Canon might be more expensive initially but in the longer run it will be better off due to the cheaper lenses.

u said it all
dnt be tempted by the stupid price tag of d3100 ... n thats the only reason i didnt buy any new dslr ... i got an old used dslr wanted to see if i can do justice with it and then ill upgrade ... n since i have a nikon so i will go for d90 for sure nothing short ... ghalib bhai also realized this very soon n got rid of his d3100
so spend initially on a future proof body ... Nikon d90, Canon 40d, 50d, 60d or canon 550d ...
600d n 550d have very little difference ... only cosmetic differences ... n some other added features ... if ur in karachi talk to rameez n he will guide u the right refrence (Digital Palace) n u will get 550d in a very gud price
i can even find u a d3100 in 52k but its not worth it ... tera future main is nay ye price difference poora kar dena hai
okay best of luck!

 

[AFQ]

yar if u have some plans for future upgrade and lenses then dnt get any nikon other than these
d70s
d80
d90
d7000

rest all entry level or high end entry level including d3100 dnt have builtin autfocus motor and trust me abhe tou tum khareed lougay cause its cheaper than others but with d3100 u will stuck for the rest of ur life untill u have it ... and will keep searching for AF-S nikon lenses
and yes AF-S lenses r expensive ...
ghalib had d90 his body can run a cheap 7000 50mm 1.8f prime but for d3100 u wud need 50mm 1.4f AF-S which costs something like 20k

in between d3100 n 550d well 550d is a beast ... it has builtin motor also so u can use the oldest canon lenses which worth a dime n optically r much superior ...
550d has much better features then d3100
depth of field, bracketing, better sensor better image processor
in realworld performance u can see the difference lies in the person using it ...
i wud suggest if u have money for 550d then i wud say go for nikon d90 ... 64k ki body hai and 18-55mm VR lens u can buy in less than 10k ... dnt buy the 18-105mm which comes with it as kitlens ...

among ur options ... i wud suggest canon 550d (even i am using a nikon d40x) ...
even if u say right now keh mera lenses kharednay ka koi plan nahe but trust me once u will have a dslr u will be anxious to buy more lenses ...
if u have no plan to build a camera system n spend in future on lenses then dnt buy dslr at all ...
get a super zoom
if u have plans for future upgrades ... intend to spend on lenses ... go for canon 550 or nikon d90

keep one thing in mind ... lenses r expensive ... u will find more nikon users but trust me u will not see much nikon entry level users with an arsenal of lenses but in canon ... the story is different ... why??? cause u can snap an old canon EF-S mount lenses as old as 1960 and use it
among d3100 n 550d ... i wud never think about d3100 if i have money for 550d
haan if i have money for d3100 i wud rather get canon 1000D n spend on lenses ...

khair itni lambi post pata nahe tou nay parhni hai ya nahe ... but dnt buy these cheap entry level nikon dslrs ... which dnt have Autofocus motor in them ... agar laina he hai then spend money on Nikon d5000 ... its image quality is very very close to d90 n much much better than d3100 ...
regards
Babar!

---------- Post added at 11:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:36 PM ----------



u said it all
dnt be tempted by the stupid price tag of d3100 ... n thats the only reason i didnt buy any new dslr ... i got an old used dslr wanted to see if i can do justice with it and then ill upgrade ... n since i have a nikon so i will go for d90 for sure nothing short ... ghalib bhai also realized this very soon n got rid of his d3100
so spend initially on a future proof body ... Nikon d90, Canon 40d, 50d, 60d or canon 550d ...
600d n 550d have very little difference ... only cosmetic differences ... n some other added features ... if ur in karachi talk to rameez n he will guide u the right refrence (Digital Palace) n u will get 550d in a very gud price
i can even find u a d3100 in 52k but its not worth it ... tera future main is nay ye price difference poora kar dena hai
okay best of luck!

wooops you suddenly made my DSLR look really bad

 

[Getafix]

@ opethian

Thanks bro for your post, it really helped me figure things out. I think you've finally convinced me not to be cheap and go for the best i can afford right now, rather than waste more money when upgrading later. I think i'll get the 550d, is 73k a good price for it? But then when i'm thinking of the 550d why not spend just a little bit more and get the 600d for 82k? Is it worth the extra 9k? Have to do a little more research on the differences between the two.

 

[ghalibmeer]

@opethian
yaar d3100 is not a bad cam for people on budget it is really a good cam ... but the problem is as you get your hands on cam you begin to feel that cam is blocking you somewhere ... that was the reason i changed it and i am not interested in movie at all ... i never made a single movie with d3100 so 1080p movie was of no use to me, d3100 also got exspeed 2 ... (with d90 that doesnt make any difference ) so i opted for d90 ... i dont know i dont like the feel of cannon it some how appears cheap to mee (opethian ke liye mai ne 550d khulwa ke check kiya tha ... its my personal opinion but i wont go for that if i were you) my suggestion to you is if you have budget buy d90 body and for time being buy 18-55 thou it wont do justice with cam. you wont regret d90.


and guys to me absence of auto focus motor is not a problem ... because you are not going for the old lenses it wont give you that much problem ... when i had d3100 i never had problem with this ... d3100 however has other limitations (because its an entry level dslr)

 

[opethian]

ghalib bhai ... i dnt know y u changed ur d3100 but sir gee ... u changed it before u felt the need for new lenses ... just goto the market n see how much AF-s lenses cost and how much similar lenses cost which u can use on d90 ... d3100 is no doubt cheaper than d90 but i wud rather spend more on a better n future proof body than on lenses ... every photographer wud eventually outgrow its dslr sooner or later ... u outgrew ur d3100 in less than 2 months ...

about canon ... well its all personel choice ... in this time frame body structure doesnt matter much ... haan if u wana compare compare 60d with 550 or 60d ... if ur not getting a weather proof shell made out of any alloy ... it doesnt matter if u buy a cam whose plastic body is a bit better than another plastic body

i am not forcing any one to make his choices but if some one has money ... he should rather spend on a better body ...
getafix if u have 82k ... then dnt think about 550d 600d or even d90 ...
get Canon 60D ...
but trust me brother ... a dslr is always more capable than the person using it ... and a prosumer or high end dslr wud always be more capable than every hobbyist photographer ... unless its ur ONLY profession it will always be more than ur visionary capabilities ...

and ghalib bhai ... no disrespect ... but these marketing gimmicks doesnt matter much once ur using n dslr ...
i am not self praising or denying the fact but see ur self ... faridahmed has shot those macros with a common digicam ... which worth less than 15k
khawaja also dnt have d90 or d3100 n used a pretty normal camera ...
n ur humble disciple ... me ... i m using a d40x which has a ccd sensor n its an obsolete tech ...
n u urself r using a d90 with its kit lens ...

its all in the photographer ... if i dnt know how to frame n scene it doesnt mater if i have a d3s or hasselblad in my hands or a chinese mobile with 1.3mp camera ... i will shoot with same vision n result wud be almost same ...

getafix ... between 550d n 600d and even d3100 ... i wud recommend get d90 body n pair it with 18-55 vr lens for time being once u have got into this world n u have d90 with u ... then there r gizzilions lenses to choose from ...

even if some one advocated d3100 i wud still go against it and wud suggest u to get d5000 ...
expeed or expeed2 ... doesnt matter ...
these r all ON PAPER differences ... unless u plan to earn money from ur photography n u wana take it as a serious profession ... it doesnt matter which dslr u have in ur hands ... i have three friends who work for Dawn News and Express News and they all have olympus e620 dslr ... n its their profession as well ... i hope u got what i wanted to say ...

so just spend wisely ... go to a shop ... grab every dslr in ur hand ...
see its ergonomics its shape ... placement of every button wheel ...
go through menu (nikon entry level dslr r very user friendly which is very gud for ist three months but after that it will be a big PIA)
n choose which u like the most ...
if i am in ur place i wud keep one thing in mind
Canon n Nikon both r at the top of this business ... they r evenly matched ...
no one is a clear winner ... but consider this ...
canon gives u DOF preview, Bracketing, Live view, in body autofocus motor even in 43k 1000D where as same things nikon gives u in their d90 ... or few of them in d5000 n none in d3100 ...
so think n choose wisely ... i

 

[Getafix]

@ ghalibmeer,
opethian is right about the lenses issue with the d3100. Once you grow out of the kit lens the camera will end up costing you more as AF-S lenses will be much more expensive. Then on top of that it's also missing some other features such as bracketing etc. So it makes sense to buy a body that can last you longer rather than upgrade after a few months like you did.

@ Opethian,
Bro i think i'm pretty sold on the 550d. D90 also seems like a good option but it's a pretty old model by now and i'd rather get something new. D90 and Canon 60D will also end up costing me close to a 100k. It's not that i cannot afford to spend that much but this is my first camera and i don't even know yet how i will take to photography. So i do have to set myself a limit. Who knows if i grow into this hobby then i might upgrade and get the best one available at that moment.

Anyway, i did a little research on 550d vs 600d and there's not many differences, just the flip screen on the 600d which would be useful in movies. Since movies aren't really my priority i don't think it's worth spending an extra 10k on the 600d. So i think i've made my mind up and i'm going for the 550d for 73k, if that's a good price. The only other option is to wait for the 1100d to come out, then again it will be cheaper but i might outgrow it after a while. So it seems like the 550d is the best choice in price/value for me at the moment.

 

[ghalibmeer]

brother seriously i dont agree with the lens thing ... i agree that it has a limitation but are you going to buy old lens not only camera misses some features old lens also misses some features too ... and how many old lenses are you going to buy for your new cam ?

and i never changed d3100 based on this lens limitations ... waisay bhi i wouldnt buy old lens untill it is very tempting to do so.

i am not convincing you to buy d3100 all i want to say its not a bad cam and it can full fill ones future needs too but if you want to progress in photography and want some pro touch go with high end cam ...

one thing more a man told me once when i was buying a cam ... that if you have curve towards cannon or nikon go with what you like both have pros and cons but you will do good with your liking and believe me its true. i have curve for nikon so cannon is no no for me if you are into cannon go for it and shoot some great photos ... we are waiting for you in autobiography section to appriciate.

 

[Getafix]

It's not about old lenses bro. The problem is that even if i buy a new lens, it will be more expensive than it's Canon counterpart. As the Nikon lens will have the focus motor built into the lens so it will cost much more.Whereas the Canon lens will have no focus motor as it's already built into the body. So why pay more for the same lens with the Nikon, that's the point we're trying to make.

As for Canon vs Nikon, you're right, it's just a matter of preference. You can't go wrong with either one.

 

[opethian]

ghalib bhai??? what is ur point of old lenses???
optically its a proven fact older lenses r better than new ones ...
ab isi ko daikh lain ... 18-55 non vr vs 18-55 vr and 18-55 vr2 ... they r optically same ... non vr is a bit better (reviews say it not me)
n vr v vr2 price difference daikhain n what extra it gives u with that vr2???
few people r obsessed with OLD vs NEW ... but in terms of lenses ... 1960 lenses r optically much much better than 2010 lenses ... read the reviews u will get the point
n the point of discussion is not old vs new here
its price of a lens with autofocus motor (AF-S Nikkor) n one without a motor (AF, AF-I, AF-D, EF-S/EF for canon)
check the prices of a 50mm Prime AF-S with 50mm Prime AF and 50mm EF-S prime ... AF-S glass will be most expensive ... n price of canon n nikkor lenses without a motor wud be same
n one more thing
new lenses r mostly (cheap new lenses) plastic body n mount ... but older lenses r mostly steel or alloy casing n mount ... which is better???

baki there is athing called BUYERS REMORSE ... buy that thing which will not make u remorse ur choices ...
most nikon buyers when suggest or advice they suggest canon dslrs ... y cause they have experienced the cons of nikon they have ...
same goes for canon buyers

baki i am sending u a pm talk to those guys ... im sure it will change ur point of view

also i got a rply from hakka who own d3100 n d7000 n he used an AF-S 10-24mm lens on both and shot some landscape and pics of his guitar ...
n there was absolute no difference ... optically these all might be same or very close in a skilled hands ... but the difference lies in the body ... options which d90 offers u or d7000 thats make it pricier ... simply put ... Asus P6T and Rampage 2 extreme both r using same chipsets and r for same processor sockets but its the features ... chokes ... other small things which make the difference ... got it

 

[ghalibmeer]

personal preferences man ...

i would still not go for the 1960 lens (if its not amazingly tempting)

and 18-200 without vr mil raha hai

(Ek tu tum log sochtay bahut ho )

 

[opethian]

non vr ka main nay achaar dalna hai ???
aur ghalib bhai ... and i wud rather buy a 5000 worth of steel casing 50mm AF 1.8f prime n use it in full manual mode rather than buying a 50mm AF-S 1.4f plasting casing costing 25k

 

[ghalibmeer]

yaar kab se kah raha hon koi micro dhoond yaar sasta sa (sorry for the off topic)