canon rebel vs. nikon d3100 or d5100

[Floyd_Davidson]

Originally Posted by MikeJaquish

Yes, you picked exactly the line that caught my attention. Thanks for the response!
I figure the 550D with kit lens will be a huge step up from my current P&S camera which is slowly fading into unreliability.
And when/if I think I am ready to really step it up, there will be lenses available.

Canon sells the 550D refurbed for $639 + $16 shipping + $50 Sales tax, and at $706 total, it looks pretty good.
The compromise to save $150 is a 90 day warranty vs. 12 months for a "new" camera.

I'm a Nikon user, so I'm really not familiar with Canon products well enough to compare them appropriately. Hence I can't really be very specific about exactly what you might want to use as criteria to judge on.

Sometimes it just really doesn't make any difference... If you buy this brand or that one, or this model or the other, you may well be satisfied enough; and it will not be replaced until well after everything else has changed (e.g., ten years down the road). For some people the size of a camera is a big deal, for others it means nothing. For some the upgrade path is important, and for others specific functionality is.

One consideration that is very hard to deal with is the user interface. For example there is a very basic difference in the approach that Nikon and Canon take, which will not make any difference to some but will be night and day to others. Nikon is much more likely to have a way to directly access a function physically. They even have a couple of programmable buttons on some cameras. Canon is more likely to access functionality by a series of menus. Which is best depends very much on the person, and knowing which you'd like best is very difficult. If you pick the wrong one it may never actually be apparent (if it were, you might replace one brand with another) and instead it will just mean that photography isn't as much fun as it could be, and the camera you own stays on the shelf at home more often than not.

Other functionality can be very specific. I saw someone explicitly mention making a choice based on one model having exposure bracketing while the entry level model did not. With Nikon cameras often it is better to spend more money on the body in order to enable the use of some much older lenses that will save money in the long run. With Canon there is an absolute cutoff, none of the modern cameras can deal with a Canon lens made in 1976 for example.

Hence, for you it may or may not make a huge difference which of those models you choose. You do want to make an effort at determining if it does or not. If it does, choose accordingly; and if not choose for any reason that fits your fancy at the moment.

[MikeJaquish]

Originally Posted by Floyd_Davidson

I'm a Nikon user, so I'm really not familiar with Canon products well enough to compare them appropriately. Hence I can't really be very specific about exactly what you might want to use as criteria to judge on.

Sometimes it just really doesn't make any difference... If you buy this brand or that one, or this model or the other, you may well be satisfied enough; and it will not be replaced until well after everything else has changed (e.g., ten years down the road). For some people the size of a camera is a big deal, for others it means nothing. For some the upgrade path is important, and for others specific functionality is.

One consideration that is very hard to deal with is the user interface. For example there is a very basic difference in the approach that Nikon and Canon take, which will not make any difference to some but will be night and day to others. Nikon is much more likely to have a way to directly access a function physically. They even have a couple of programmable buttons on some cameras. Canon is more likely to access functionality by a series of menus. Which is best depends very much on the person, and knowing which you'd like best is very difficult. If you pick the wrong one it may never actually be apparent (if it were, you might replace one brand with another) and instead it will just mean that photography isn't as much fun as it could be, and the camera you own stays on the shelf at home more often than not.

Other functionality can be very specific. I saw someone explicitly mention making a choice based on one model having exposure bracketing while the entry level model did not. With Nikon cameras often it is better to spend more money on the body in order to enable the use of some much older lenses that will save money in the long run. With Canon there is an absolute cutoff, none of the modern cameras can deal with a Canon lens made in 1976 for example.

Hence, for you it may or may not make a huge difference which of those models you choose. You do want to make an effort at determining if it does or not. If it does, choose accordingly; and if not choose for any reason that fits your fancy at the moment.

"...choose for any reason that fits your fancy at the moment."
Yep. My fancy told me to order the 550D.
If I determine I made a mistake, they are holding value very well, and I can easily resell it.

Thanis for the discussion. I was able to handle both over the last week, and the menu driven selections are what I am most familiar with.

[css9450]

Originally Posted by Floyd_Davidson

Sometimes it just really doesn't make any difference...

I agree; you can't go wrong with either. Buy one and have fun! In two years or five or ten years if you feel like you need to upgrade, whatever lenses you have for this first camera will work with the new one too, so no need to worry there.

[ReturningWest]

I'm a Canon fan myself, like you I did a lot research but felt I was getting better bang for the buck with Canon. Another thing is there is a lot of support with Canon and they have a whole forum just for Canon users and it's for everyone from rank beginners to seasoned pro's called photography on the net.