Nikon D3100 vs Canon 1200D

[heartbroken]

Hi,

I am looking at a entry level DSLR camera, this will be my first, so I am totally clueless. I would mostly do landscape photos, some wildlife and maybe a bit of family/friend portraits, not at all interested in shooting sports.

My budget is really low - some affirmative shopping had an effect on it. So I am looking at the best bang for buck for R 5000.00. I know it's not a lot. I really want to get it before December, I want to play around with it while on holiday this year.

Kalahari has the Canon 1200D for R4599.00

http://www.kalahari.com/Camera-Photo-Video/Canon-EOS-1200D-Twin-Lens-Photobook-Bundle_p_49765158

I read on here that the Ef75-300Mm 1:4-5.6 Iii is considered horrid, but at least the Ef-S18-55mm has IS.

And Takelot has the Nikon D3100 for R4989

http://www.takealot.com/nikon-d3100-14mp-twin-dx-lens-value-bundle-200mm/PLID32818401

Some people I spoke to said that the 55-200mm lens is not enough and that I will need more? Another con is that the 18-55 lens does not have VR (compared to the Cannon)

Pros and cons of each? Which one would you choose and why?

Thanks!!

 

[fvdbergh]

Hi,

I am looking at a entry level DSLR camera, this will be my first, so I am totally clueless. I would mostly do landscape photos, some wildlife and maybe a bit of family/friend portraits, not at all interested in shooting sports.

The sensor performance of the 1200D and the D3100 is identical, at least according to DxOMark. There is also no real-world difference between the sensor resolutions: 18 MP vs 14 MP is not something that will ever show up in your photos (at print sizes or web image size).

In other words, your choice is down to the lenses included in the bundle, and your preference in the handling of either Canon or Nikon. If you have not already done this, try to visit a physical store where you can play with both.

I have owned both the 55-200 mm Nikon lenses. When used on a D40 (old 6MP body) they both performed fine for their price. On a higher resolution body (16 MP) the 55-200 mm VR lens was starting to feel a bit soft (and this will almost certainly apply to the 55-200 mm non-VR lens too, but that lens also fell victim to affirmative shopping). I upgraded to the Nikon 70-300 mm VR lens (which was about R5k back then), which performed well enough on the 16 MP body. Bottom line: the 55-200 mm bundled lens is probably slightly better than the 75-300 bundled with the 1200D, but neither of these lenses will satisfy a serious wildlife photographer anyway (think R10k+ lenses).

Having IS (or VR) on an 18-55 mm lens is very convenient (this counts against the D3100 bundle, but the 18-55 mm non-VR lens is not a bad lens). I should add that for me the 18 mm focal length is not quite wide enough for expansive landscape work (but you can still panorama stitch for now) --- my point being that you might purchase another lens for landscapes down the road, something like the Sigma 10-20 mm.

 

[acidrain]

The D3100 has a much lower screen resolution than the 1200D which could lend to misleading quality when reviewing on the camera.

I've noticed this on a few occasions with the 1200D already where the picture looks sharp on the camera but then viewing on a pc it wasn't as sharp as what the camera showed.

I could stand to be corrected on this though ( as I can only assume it's because of the low screen resolution offered ) but it has been an experience of mine.

 

[heartbroken]

The sensor performance of the 1200D and the D3100 is identical, at least according to DxOMark. There is also no real-world difference between the sensor resolutions: 18 MP vs 14 MP is not something that will ever show up in your photos (at print sizes or web image size).

In other words, your choice is down to the lenses included in the bundle, and your preference in the handling of either Canon or Nikon. If you have not already done this, try to visit a physical store where you can play with both.

I have owned both the 55-200 mm Nikon lenses. When used on a D40 (old 6MP body) they both performed fine for their price. On a higher resolution body (16 MP) the 55-200 mm VR lens was starting to feel a bit soft (and this will almost certainly apply to the 55-200 mm non-VR lens too, but that lens also fell victim to affirmative shopping). I upgraded to the Nikon 70-300 mm VR lens (which was about R5k back then), which performed well enough on the 16 MP body. Bottom line: the 55-200 mm bundled lens is probably slightly better than the 75-300 bundled with the 1200D, but neither of these lenses will satisfy a serious wildlife photographer anyway (think R10k+ lenses).

Having IS (or VR) on an 18-55 mm lens is very convenient (this counts against the D3100 bundle, but the 18-55 mm non-VR lens is not a bad lens). I should add that for me the 18 mm focal length is not quite wide enough for expansive landscape work (but you can still panorama stitch for now) --- my point being that you might purchase another lens for landscapes down the road, something like the Sigma 10-20 mm.

Jeez, photography might be one of the most confusing things I ever tried.

So the bodies of the Nikon and Canon is as near as makes no difference. So the question would be, do you go for the longer, but slightly worse 75-300 or the slightly better 55-200.

Another question, the Cannon kit lenses goes from 18-55 to 75-300, will you ever miss the 20mm "between" lenses?

 

[heartbroken]

The D3100 has a much lower screen resolution than the 1200D which could lend to misleading quality when reviewing on the camera.

I've noticed this on a few occasions with the 1200D already where the picture looks sharp on the camera but then viewing on a pc it wasn't as sharp as what the camera showed.

I could stand to be corrected on this though ( as I can only assume it's because of the low screen resolution offered ) but it has been an experience of mine.

I haven't thought about that, actually I completely ignored the screen as I figured you would mostly use the viewfinder.

 

[acidrain]

I haven't thought about that, actually I completely ignored the screen as I figured you would mostly use the viewfinder.

No, sure you do use the view finder but if your want to review the picture to make sure you got the shot you want , it is displayed on the screen and might present a different quality picture than what will be displayed on your monitor.

 

[heartbroken]

No, sure you do use the view finder but if your want to review the picture to make sure you got the shot you want , it is displayed on the screen and might present a different quality picture than what will be displayed on your monitor.

I understand, for some reason I never thought about reviewing shots on the camera. Which will be kind of a stuff up, getting home and finding that all your photos are unusable

 

[acidrain]

I understand, for some reason I never thought about reviewing shots on the camera. Which will be kind of a stuff up, getting home and finding that all your photos are unusable

Ye I learnt the hard way. I don't check after every shot. I take a few and when I'm done I just check to make sure Im happy with what I got.

 

[fvdbergh]

Jeez, photography might be one of the most confusing things I ever tried.

It is only confusing until you have bought into a particular brand (Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sony, whatever). From then on, you just have to keep on believing that your chosen brand is the best

So the question would be, do you go for the longer, but slightly worse 75-300 or the slightly better 55-200.

I'll leave that question to someone who has used the 75-300.

Another question, the Cannon kit lenses goes from 18-55 to 75-300, will you ever miss the 20mm "between" lenses?

Probably not, but it will depend on your shooting style. (Not a helpful reply, I know, but it is a tricky question).

 

[Athos]

No, sure you do use the view finder but if your want to review the picture to make sure you got the shot you want , it is displayed on the screen and might present a different quality picture than what will be displayed on your monitor.

You really shouldn't worry to much about reviewing images in detail on any LCD display on your camera. The only two things I use that display for is checking my exposure (using histogram) and checking for composition.

When it comes to the bundles check out this link:

http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-side?products=nikon_d3100&products=canon_eos1200d

Just having a quick look at the bodies I would say the Canon is superior. The canon was released 4 years after the Nikon and the canon has slightly better low light capabilities. Everything else is about the same on both bodies.

The lenses will (in my opinion) always be the most important aspect. All of the lenses here are not going to be "top of range". You will one day want to buy yourself some decent glass so what you start with now (when comparing the bundles) is much of the same on both sides.

If you want to do wildlife photography (which is very similar to sports photography in terms of equipment) the 300mm will be better than the 200mm BUT 300mm is still nowhere near enough, you need a decent 500 - 600mm or a 300 - 400mm f4 lens with a 1.4x converter.

The 18 - 55mm with IS/VR is better than without IS/VR.

Keep in mind that Canon is more prevalent in South Africa, which means that finding second hand stuff for Canon's is much easier than finding second hand Nikon stuff. Canon is also sometimes cheaper than Nikon.

 

[Progenix Oj101]

I should add that for me the 18 mm focal length is not quite wide enough for expansive landscape work (but you can still panorama stitch for now) --- my point being that you might purchase another lens for landscapes down the road, something like the Sigma 10-20 mm.

I mainly shoot landscapes, I use either ~24mm or 50mm and do a panorama as I HATE the perspective distortion you get from ultra wide angles.

Here is an example:

Wide angle:


50mm panorama:


A longer lens compresses relative distance, a short lens such as a 10mm does the opposite, greatly exaggerating the apparent distance between near and distant objects. The skew tree can be perspective corrected with a fair bit of time in Photoshop, but it won't be perfect. The large tree on left/tiny building on right, however, can't be. Things look much more natural when shot with a lens closer to the normal of the sensor (focal distance equal to the diagonal of the sensor).

 

[fvdbergh]

I mainly shoot landscapes, I use either ~24mm or 50mm and do a panorama as I HATE the perspective distortion you get from ultra wide angles.

Fair enough.

 

[acidrain]

You really shouldn't worry to much about reviewing images in detail on any LCD display on your camera. The only two things I use that display for is checking my exposure (using histogram) and checking for composition.

Well not really detail as one would think but more for things like any blurring, composition etc etc. The low resolution screen is very misleading.

I am currently at a disadvantage where my telephoto hasn't got IS but looking at the prices of good glass it would probably be better for me to first get a better camera to compliment it.... Looking at the 7D but it's a bit of saving process

 

[Athos]

Well not really detail as one would think but more for things like any blurring, composition etc etc. The low resolution screen is very misleading.

I am currently at a disadvantage where my telephoto hasn't got IS but looking at the prices of good glass it would probably be better for me to first get a better camera to compliment it.... Looking at the 7D but it's a bit of saving process

Yeah I know how you feel. I am in a similar situation. The thing is I find it better to upgrade glass first.

A decent lens with image stabilisation etc will last a long time if you take care of it nicely.

A body will last as long as the technology it uses. So if you buy a body today in 2 years time you are already looking for the latest and greatest.

The 7D is a nice body though

 

[Athos]

I mainly shoot landscapes, I use either ~24mm or 50mm and do a panorama as I HATE the perspective distortion you get from ultra wide angles.

Here is an example:

Wide angle:
View attachment 164367

50mm panorama:
View attachment 164369

A longer lens compresses relative distance, a short lens such as a 10mm does the opposite, greatly exaggerating the apparent distance between near and distant objects. The skew tree can be perspective corrected with a fair bit of time in Photoshop, but it won't be perfect. The large tree on left/tiny building on right, however, can't be. Things look much more natural when shot with a lens closer to the normal of the sensor (focal distance equal to the diagonal of the sensor).

+1

I also prefer the perspective you get using the 50mm pano method.

I think ultra-wide angle lenses also have their place though.

Luckily these aren't the biggest lenses in your kit so would be best to carry both lenses and shoot the scene twice (if lighting and time permit it).

 

[Progenix Oj101]

+1

I also prefer the perspective you get using the 50mm pano method.

I think ultra-wide angle lenses also have their place though.

Luckily these aren't the biggest lenses in your kit so would be best to carry both lenses and shoot the scene twice (if lighting and time permit it).

Ultra wides definitely have a place - photographing the Milky Way would be a *** job with a 50mm There are some times you might WANT the distortion as well, I can't think of any offhand but I'm sure there are

 

[AhComment]

Hi,

I am looking at a entry level DSLR camera, this will be my first, so I am totally clueless. I would mostly do landscape photos, some wildlife and maybe a bit of family/friend portraits, not at all interested in shooting sports.

My budget is really low - some affirmative shopping had an effect on it. So I am looking at the best bang for buck for R 5000.00. I know it's not a lot. I really want to get it before December, I want to play around with it while on holiday this year.

Kalahari has the Canon 1200D for R4599.00

http://www.kalahari.com/Camera-Photo-Video/Canon-EOS-1200D-Twin-Lens-Photobook-Bundle_p_49765158

I read on here that the Ef75-300Mm 1:4-5.6 Iii is considered horrid, but at least the Ef-S18-55mm has IS.

And Takelot has the Nikon D3100 for R4989

http://www.takealot.com/nikon-d3100-14mp-twin-dx-lens-value-bundle-200mm/PLID32818401

Some people I spoke to said that the 55-200mm lens is not enough and that I will need more? Another con is that the 18-55 lens does not have VR (compared to the Cannon)

Pros and cons of each? Which one would you choose and why?

Thanks!!

Get the Canon - easy interface for shot settings and the lenses will see you well until you want to spend a lot more on them

 

[heartbroken]

Well, I took an extra 1k from my savings account and ordered the Canon 600D, not even close to what I was planning to do, but hopefully it will work out.

 

[Athos]

Well, I took an extra 1k from my savings account and ordered the Canon 600D, not even close to what I was planning to do, but hopefully it will work out.

Well the 600D is better than the 1200D in my opinion.

Good luck.

 

[Keno]

Take either one, flog the kit lens, and buy yourself a cheap 50mm f1.8 at under R2000 new, 2nd hand about R1500.