Cannon Vs. Nikon plus + lenses

[petermb72]

Ok, so hear is the deal I know this is the Cannon area of the Forum so I a going to be posint the Identical post in the Nikon area to hear both sides of the story.



Facts:
Hate Point and shoot camera.
Pictures at kids concerts and sporting events are dark, grainy, and blurry.
Told wife we are missing out by not having a good DSLR camera.
Have a $900 budget for this deal
Want to do it at Best Buy to take advantage of 18 months no interest.

Cameras and packages I am considering:

Cannon T2i with EF-S 18-55mm Lens $771
or
Nikon D3100 with 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 Zoom-Nikkor VR Lens + 18-200mm VR Zoom Lens + bag +4 gig memory chip $799

The big differance that I am seeing, being a totall nube, is the cannon is 18 megapixle and the Nikon is 14.2 megapixle.

So what is my best choice of action here trying to get everything I need and staying close to under $900? I would also like to get a flash and extra batteries.


Thanks,
Peter

I had another post below that just delt with the Cannon, but now I need to widen my question out.

[Doug Vann]

I am a Canon user but either of the systems you mention would do a much better job then a point and shoot. My opinion on lenses that try to do everything - like the 18-200 you mention, tend to not be as good......

[Anbesol]

The Canon has a better AF system. Honestly, I would advise staying away from best buy, so you can find something that meets your needs a little better. The DSLR's that really handle low light, fast focus the best are going to be a level above the consumer ones you mentioned. You can do it for similar cost though, but on a used market. The Canon 40D or 50D, or a Nikon D90 or D200, or Sony A700 - check those out. As I said in your other thread, pair any one of those with a Tokina 80-400mm lens and thats about as good and fast as you get under $900.

I'll also emphasize that most beginners experience poorer results with their first several rounds of shooting with a DSLR than they did with their point and shoot. Don't expect it to be all that simple, especially with a slow kit lens.

If you absolutely must stick with best buy, The T2i or the Sony A330 or Sony SLT-A33 are the best options, not sure if they have a D90 there or not. The Sony SLT-A33 will be the most beginner friendly with its optical EVF.

Don't worry about the megapixels, as any of them are plenty for your needs, I'm on 12 right now with my A700, I print large often and have no need for more sensor resolution.

[petermb72]

I was looking craigs list, ebay, etc.... but my wife is very unsure of buying someting this expensive and delicate. I know little about it so buying new gives me more peace of mind. I have not looked Sony. I will take a look at those.

I take it the Nikon is not one of your choices.

On flashes are they important for those lower light ocassions like kids concerts?

[petermb72]

ok, So I looked at the Sony SLT-a33. It looks like a great camera that a newbie like me could handle, as well as my wife. I am leaning more that way now. How about the external flash, will it just sit in the bag? I am thinking of the school concert where I am in a darkened gym and the kids are on stage with, ok lighting. I am about 100 feet away.

Thanks for taking the time to try to educate me.

[Anbesol]

Well, the Canon 40D/50D, Sony A700, and Nikon D90/D200 are all pro bodies built to much more rugged standards, in all likelihood a used pro-grade body is going to last longer than a new consumer level body. The most fragile part of a camera is typically the mirror, consumer level cameras use a pentamirror, plastic mirrors connected. The pro-bodies are built with a glass prism that is much more durable. Also, polycarbonate/magnesium alloy body, etc and so on. A pro-grade body typically can last well over a decade.

The Sony A33 does not have a moving pentamirror or prism, so that whole moving plastic mirrors parts doesn't apply to the Sony SLT series, this certainly works in favor of its ruggedness and durability.

You can tackle a long distance low light shot in a few ways. Ideally, you have an f/2.8 or f/4 lens at ~ 200mm, shoot moderate ISO. However, your budget makes a 200mm fast lens impossible. The other way is utilizing higher ISO's, and maximizing your light with whatever you can, a flash can work, but it often is distracting, produces pan flat ugly light, and at 100 ft, by the time the light travels that far, its not very strong at all, so you need major power, adding to the distracting nature of the flash in a social environment. You're best bet is likely going to be shooting with your aperture value at its widest (~f/5.6-6.3 on typical cheap lens) and the ISO cranked to something like 1600-3200. You can also utilize image stabilizer technology, something built into every Sony DSLR, and built into many Canon and Nikon lens.

The external flash is always a good idea, but it takes a lot of time, practice, study, and thought to really understand how to throw light so it looks good. Once you learn the techniques of bouncing the flash and using your environment to manipulate light control, you can really get some good, controllable results. however, learning this is not easy, a flash also big and ugly and grabs a lot of attention, especially when it goes off.

It is no problem, glad to help.

[Loupey]

On paper the Nikon seems to be the better choice between the two since you get an extra lens going to 200mm (although I believe you mean a 55-200mm lens and not the 18-200mm).

For concerts and sports, you will need a 200mm at a minimum. Avoid the flash. You're going to want a camera that performs well at ISO's in the 1600~3200 range as Anbesol explained.

[petermb72]

Ok, I give up. I need to have a fast lens to get the pictures I want, but the cost is going to make this a two part purchase. I will buy a camera and then save for a fast zoom lens. So I know this is the canon area, but I want an unbiased answer. What's the better camera, the t2i or the nikon 3100?

[Loupey]

It is really not very common to find someone who has very good hands-on knowledge/experience with multiple systems. So getting an unbiased opinion might be a little difficult.

Do your research, handle different models and brands, then make your decision.


Then never look back.

[WesternGuy]

peter, I tend to agree with Loupey, it is difficult to find someone who has experience with both sytems, so what you end up with is often biased by the individual replying, becauseCanon folks are Canon folks and Nikon folks are Nikon folks and they each have their own, different perpsective.

Do a Google search using "canon t2i vs nikon d3100 reviews" and you will find a number of web sites with information on various aspects of each camera compared. From the little looking I did on a few of them, it really becomes a bit of a tossup. The only thing to think about is that once you make a choice of a system, whether it is Canon or Nikon or Sony or whatever, you will most likely be committed to it for life because the cost of moving from one sytem to another can become insurmountable. HTH.

Cheers,

WesternGuy

[Anbesol]

The canon has a faster autofocus center crosshair, a brighter viewfinder, a MUCH better LCD screen (over 4 times the resolution), the canon also has a cleaner image grain, which is surprising considering it is the higher resolution. (though, the D3100 does still have excellent image grain). *source: imaging-resource - check the "comparometer"

The canon finally has a 3:2 ratio LCD screen, so the captured image can be displayed border to border on the LCD. Not a big deal, but a neat change of pace (finally, why do so many MFR make 4:3 screens for a camera that captures in 3:2 anyway??)

No doubt that the Canon T2i has the edge over the D3100, but that edge may be mitigated by the cost difference. Though, as I said before, I'd rather have a D200/D90/40D/50D/A700 than either of those.

It is really not very common to find someone who has very good hands-on knowledge/experience with multiple systems

I actually became professionally hands-on familiar with the Canon 20/30D, the 40D, the 50D, the Nikon D200, and my Sony A700. I've handled an olympus on a few occasions, but still am very unfamiliar with that system. Even when a bias exists, there is still literal technical data that can be represented, "Whats better, the T2i or the D3100" does not require a subjective response. They are very similar, the Canon has better features, the Canon has better image quality, the Canon is also more expensive. This is in recognition of the differences as facts, not in my subjective, personal opinion.

[petermb72]

Thank you very much for everyones input. I think I will wait a few weeks and see if Canon has any deals coming out on the t2i due to having the t3i out now.

Thanks,
Peter