Nikon D5100 or Canon EOS T2i/T3i

[Tmoriarty]

Thank you again for all the input. I went to the store again tonight and held both cameras. Within reason they are pretty close to the same. And I completely agree that I dont know near enough to know what im getting into at this point. hence the questions and me going in and playing with the cameras. I like the Canons ease of operation.... it makes it easy for my wife to learn it. It still seems to have most of the options of the D5100. I have seen reviews that say the D5100 has 20% better image quality.... which makes me wonder though.

I know the lens makes the camera not the body, but either way I go I get about the same starter lens. Both companies have lenses that look nice and at this point I wont know which ones are best until i actually buy into the systems. I dropped the T2i out of the options because the wife really likes the flip screen for family pictures. I wanted to make an educated choice and at this point I think I know most of what I can without actually beign hands on with either camera. I really need to get a chance to play with them at home.

Again thank you everyone for the input.

 

[JBen]

Tyler, with regards to lens differences between the two. It's not a case of one being better than the other, it's more their offerings (choices for the consumer) and in some few cases price point. I went Canon because (at least when I started years ago) Canon had the 400mm f5.6 ( Nikon has nothing like this) and IS in their long lenses (Nikon has since added VR). The options at 70-200 and the MP65 (Nikon doesn't offer). That said Nikon offers some lenses that Canon doesn't really offer as well.

Your wife will love the flip screen...My GF went for the Canon 60D for the same reason .
You will both be happy with the choice, going forward spend time not so much researching lenses and studying MTF charts, but map out what focal lengths and what apertures are important to you. It takes time to complete a "kit" but if you plan it, you won't buy lenses that you don't really want/need and then upgrade/replace them as well. My very first lens purchase was my 400 f5.6. I knew I wanted a long lens to serve for years (until I could get a 500 f4) and I wanted one I could pack for travel. I don't use it a lot anymore, but when I get an assignment I can pack that where as my 500 I can't. It was 2 years before I replaced the kit lens with the 24-70 (this is my workhorse) and 6 years (landscape for me is something I do for fun) before I bought the 16-35 (needed when Im in boats, duck blinds etc). My point here is, all my lenses from the very first, to the very last we're mapped out pretty much from day one, and their order of their purchase, which was largely based on need. My very last lens was the aforementioned 70-200mm. I knew way back i wanted one (which one of the 4 I wasn't sure) because it's a range I just don't need a lot because Im typically on the long end (wildlife etc) or short end (hunters, anglers, people) but do on occasion find myself on one side of the river and my subject the other.

 

[Coralreefin]

Cannot go wrong with either camera... I went with the D5100 and love it. The reason i went with it is i found a site to review cameras and body styles. it said to buy the nikon now as it was recently updated and the canons to wait for the update... Needed a camera so went with the Nikon.

 

[Tmoriarty]

OK in the case lets ask this... I will want to be focusing on macro photography.... I love doing detailed closeups of things, not just in my tank but in nature in general. Also keep in mind I am just a hobbyist at this point and will probably never be shooting professionally. While the lenses matter a great deal I dont think ill be buying 1500 dollar lenses anytime soon if ever. I would like to get a nice macro lens, and a nice long range lens. With that said and noting that the main lens I will probably buy thats nicer is a macro lens, which camera system is better for macro photography regarding lenses?

 

[blazemore]

I think in general people consider Nikon to have a very slight edge for photos, while the Canons are slightly better for video. You may want to read up on them at dpreview.com as you can get a lot of great answers from a variety of people that are really into this (photography) stuff.

In most people's hands, they'll get the same result from either brand, though.

 

[JBen]

OK in the case lets ask this... I will want to be focusing on macro photography.... I love doing detailed closeups of things, not just in my tank but in nature in general. Also keep in mind I am just a hobbyist at this point and will probably never be shooting professionally. While the lenses matter a great deal I dont think ill be buying 1500 dollar lenses anytime soon if ever. I would like to get a nice macro lens, and a nice long range lens. With that said and noting that the main lens I will probably buy thats nicer is a macro lens, which camera system is better for macro photography regarding lenses?

If at this point in time your "pretty" sure you want to focus on Macro photography. You can look at some Sigma or Tamron Macro lenses that won't break the bank.....relative to their Nikon/Canon counter parts. You can also instead get a nice prime plus a set of tubes for about the same or less cost.

Wildlife.
Generally speaking you want 300mm and more. You can look at 300mm f4 primes and add TCs to get over 400mm, you can look at some "zoom" lenses that get to 300mm (all makers). Lots of choice here.

Thats generally speaking a good way to approach it. Determine what aspects are important to you, be it Landscape, portraits, sports/action, wildlife/nature. Identify some lenses that fulfill those needs (where possible consider how the lens can pull double/triple duty) prioritise the "needs/wants" and go from there.

 

[Tmoriarty]

I looked more into both... which i have been for a while now. It would seem that canon offers better macro lens options then nikon. Since my main focus will be taking pictures through macro I think ill go with the canon. Both seem to have very similar results. Also a few things i read show that the nikkon shows its auto white balance blue tints things more than real white. Since I will be taking a lot of tank shots... more blue is exactly what im trying to avoid. Thank you everyone for all of your inputs.

 

[BlueCorn]

Also a few things i read show that the nikkon shows its auto white balance blue tints things more than real white. Since I will be taking a lot of tank shots... more blue is exactly what im trying to avoid. Thank you everyone for all of your inputs.

This is a silly thing to even concern yourself with. The best (and it also happens to be the simplest) way of dealing with WB is to shoot RAW. When you shoot RAW, none of that applies because YOU, not the software running in on the camera's processor decide whether you want a "blue tint" or not.

Even if you were able to produce a 100% accurate custom WB for shooting your tank, the pictures still wouldn't look right to you because it wouldn't match what you see.

I'm not trying to talk you out of the Canon. I shoot, and prefer Canon. What I'm suggesting is that you're still ignoring what's important and basing your decision on a bunch of meaningless information.

Best of luck.

 

[JBen]

To add to what Beerguy just said.

Photography is "subjective". Generally speaking you aim for a "proper" exposure and you aim for correct WB.

but it's up to you and your creative vision whether or not to intentionally.
underexpose/overexpose
Cool an image, warm an image.

In the other thread, my first image of a tree in a snow squall.
intentionally over exposed by 1 stop
intentionally cooled a tad.

I often use warming CPs..and even "gels" on my flashes that might warm/cool the light.
In fact in many area's most art and photography is warmed relative to what was. People (viewers) generally speaking react better to warmer images.

So what camera's do with regards to WB is as he said largely meaningless once you start shooting RAW and aside from memory capacity issues there's no good reason not to.

 

[Misled]

Also a few things i read show that the nikkon shows its auto white balance blue tints things more than real white.

Being the resident Nikon guy, I'd like to know where this comes from. I always shoot in RAW, but a few years back I shot with auto WB and never saw anything like that. Do you have any links???

 

[Mytola]

AFAIK, the nikon is a bit ahead of the canon when it comes to high ISO performance. Neither camera is going to be a limiting factor when it comes to shooting great photos.

 

[turok]

something to think about... which len can you borrow from friends/family?

 

[Tron_954]

Im very pleased with the performance of my t3i, but if i had to go again id either get the 60d, which is basically a better built t3i with weathersealing, or just splurge and grab the 7d.

 

[JBen]

Being the resident Nikon guy, I'd like to know where this comes from. I always shoot in RAW, but a few years back I shot with auto WB and never saw anything like that. Do you have any links???

A few years ago it was commonly said that Nikons reds and skins tones were truer. How true that was I don't know, I never put much stock into Canon/Nikon debates. Both are great systems and while there are slight differences between I see that as a good thing, not a one being better than the other thing.

AFAIK, the nikon is a bit ahead of the canon when it comes to high ISO performance. Neither camera is going to be a limiting factor when it comes to shooting great photos.

This is true. Nikon for a lot of years lost both a lot of business as people with a lot invested in N switched to C due to N failing to address noise issues. When they did start addressing it, they one upped C.

However at this point the truth is both produce clean images at "high" ISOs. Not too many years ago the benchmark was ISO 1,000. Today ISO 1,000 isn't considered high. Where you start seeing some difference well up there, ISO 6,000, 12,000 etc.

I routinely shoot in extremely low light. First light, last light in the woods and under the canopy and even in the dead of night, before false dawn. I have yet to feel the need to shoot above ISO 2,000. I do not believe in all honesty I've pushed my ISO above 2,000. So yes, N produces slightly cleaner images at ISO 6,000....who really needs to shoot at ISO 6,000 and up and how often?

Moonless night.
ISO 2000

ISO 2000

 

[Tmoriarty]

The nikkon shooting more blue was from a Digital photography magazine i got that was comparing multiple high level dslrs. As far as feautures mattering beerguy, they honestly do, not because they will affect how the camera shoots but cause they affect how my wife will shoot with it. My wife is not going to be shooting in RAW, she is going to be using auto everything, so I would prefer the camera that shoots the easiest for her. Im aware that the only limiting factor on either camera will be my lens and my ability to shoot with it. I will most likely shoot in RAW and edit my photos for white balance, but if im just messing around I would like the camera that balances better. The two cameras are really similar so I didn't miss the point you were trying to convey. I have to think as a hobbyist not as a professional. My wife drives that and needs an easier to use camera.

After a lot of research, on lens and features of the bodies, i settled on the T3i and will be receiving it early next week. The two largest factors for my decision were that the T3i is more user friendly for my wife (I know both cameras have an auto mode, but only canon explains what each option does for your pictures on the camera) but still has all the same top end features the D700 does. The other factor was the 100mm Macro lens for canon is rated higher then the equivelant Nikon lens. I was also able to find the T3i new for around 75$ less. Like you guys have said im buying into a system and for what im planning on shooting the Canon seems to have the better lens options and the simplicity to still be usable by my wife.

 

[BlueCorn]

Sounds like you made a good decision.

When I said features didn't matter I was simplifying. The point I was trying to make is that most of the features that folks end up comparing have almost no impact on image quality.

Cheers

 

[gozermantis]

i love my d5100 i use it everyday

 

[Tmoriarty]

Sounds like you made a good decision.

When I said features didn't matter I was simplifying. The point I was trying to make is that most of the features that folks end up comparing have almost no impact on image quality.

Cheers

completely understood, thanks for all the good input, it helped me look deeper into the features that will eventually matter for me (IE macro lens options). When I get the camera ill take some shots of the tank with it and see what i can do. Im excited to have a camera that can finally take pictures of the tank the way its meant to be seen.

 

[Tmoriarty]

Being the resident Nikon guy, I'd like to know where this comes from. I always shoot in RAW, but a few years back I shot with auto WB and never saw anything like that. Do you have any links???

Digital Photography magazine, issue #80, DSLR shootout. Was just the unbiased authors impression of the D7100, not of other nikons.

I did get my camera yesterday.... its awesome. It takes better pictures than i know what I can do with at this point. I cant wait to learn more about it.

 

[Misled]

Was just the unbiased authors impression of the D7100, not of other nikons.

Problem is I can't find a D7100. It "may" be released in the summer, but it's not out yet. Is it possible they meant P7100?? That's a point and shoot. I don't think they could have meant the D7000 as it has the same sensor as the D5100, so the same problems should arise. Not trying to over blow this, but I could come up with other reasons for what they came up with. The camera would be pretty far down the list.