Nikon D3100, any good?

[Anbesol]

1) Though DSLR's are interchangeable when it comes to lens, does the stock 18-55m lens allow "Macro mode"?

Macro is not a mode, it is the relative minimum focus distance, to which the standard 18-55mm kit can focus fairly closely for a zoom of its range, with a magnification of 1:3.2 at 55mm it will focus closer than most other alternatives. True macro lens, however, produce much greater magnification, of 1:1.

2) Does the Nikon D3100 use a electric viewfinder or a optical viewfinder? Also is the difference and which is better?

Optical, preference. The optical viewfinder shows an organic, true to life view straight through the lens. An EVF shows a digital reproduction of the scene. There are a numerous variety of benefits of EVF and only a small amount of drawbacks. Chief of which is the live exposure feedback, showing you what your picture looks like before you take it, i.e. color temperature and overall exposure bias. CSC (compact system cameras) and Sony SLT's use EVF's. Though I do think that the EVF has many more benefits than drawbacks, the optical viewfinder does still kick ass.

3) Does the D3100 have burst shot? If so, how many shoots can be shot per mode?

Yes, 3.

4) Does the camera have fast shutter speed? Does it shoot as fast as I can click the shutter button?

The shutter speed is dictated by the available light, ISO and the relative aperture of the lens. It has nothing to do with the camera. 1/250th of a second on the D3100 at f/5.6 is 1/250th of a second on any camera. A scene has an exposure value that is apart from the function of the camera. The fastest shutter speed the D3100 is capable of is 1/4000th of a second.

5) I plan to spend no MORE than $550, which other entry levels would you suggest? I was looking at the Canon T3, Canon XS, and other entry level DSLR, but still prefer the Nikon D3100, but any other DSLR would you guys suggest?

I think you would most likely find a much greater benefit in the CSC category of camera. To be honest, $550 gets you crap for DSLR gear, and unless you plan on spending thousands of dollars, the DSLR does virtually nothing for you that a CSC camera doesn't do with greater convenience. A CSC camera also has some performance improvements, including but not limited to A) Higher speed bursts, ranging from 5-10 frames per second instead of 3. B) No mirror slap, and C) the versatility of having a small flange design, affording it a compatibility, manual focus, to every film lens that has ever been made for any standard mount.

The Olympus E-PM1, the Panasonic GF-2, and the Sony NEX-C3 are available in the same price range as the D3100 and are likely going to be easier for you to use, less noisy and more discrete. The DSLR is not the only choice people have to produce good images.

And to Franglais -

The focussing system is very quick (much faster than a bridge camera)

I assume you are talking about the point and shoots, and not the CSC category. Because as of now, single shot AF-S with kit lens, the CSC cameras have a faster autofocus than the D3100 does. Many times more so when compared to using the D3100's live view mode.

Nikon and Canon dominate the market

The DSLR market. The DSLR market is also trended down, while CSC cameras have taken that chunk of the market. The trend is also growing and in more advanced markets we can see the overall photo-cultural move towards the rangefinder style design of a CSC camera. DSLR is great and its been good to us, but MOST of the people who end up getting it now would be better served with a CSC. Their is some clout around a DSLR that leads people to believe they are superior just because they are a DSLR, but the CSC's have every single feature the D3100 and T3 have, they're just not pointlessly large. Getting a DSLR now only to use it with a kit lens is a very poor decision now. If you want DSLR, make it because you want the premium, high end, expensive optics, because there really is no other reason to choose them over CSC>

[Franglais]

...
The DSLR market. The DSLR market is also trended down, while CSC cameras have taken that chunk of the market. The trend is also growing and in more advanced markets we can see the overall photo-cultural move towards the rangefinder style design of a CSC camera. DSLR is great and its been good to us, but MOST of the people who end up getting it now would be better served with a CSC. Their is some clout around a DSLR that leads people to believe they are superior just because they are a DSLR, but the CSC's have every single feature the D3100 and T3 have, they're just not pointlessly large. Getting a DSLR now only to use it with a kit lens is a very poor decision now. If you want DSLR, make it because you want the premium, high end, expensive optics, because there really is no other reason to choose them over CSC>

You notice that when lord_of_film was talking in an earlier post about Bridge cameras I said he should look at a camera with a "larger sensor" meaning a DSLR or a CSC (ex EVIL).

Your analysis is very good. It helps me understand - why I'm not going to get into CSC. I need those premium high end expensive optics with a (low-end) pro DSLR body any time I know I'm going to do pictures. The rest of the time I need a really small camera that fits in a pouch on my day bag or on my belt or in my pocket.

[Anbesol]

You notice that when lord_of_film was talking in an earlier post about Bridge cameras I said he should look at a camera with a "larger sensor" meaning a DSLR or a CSC (ex EVIL).

Your analysis is very good. It helps me understand - why I'm not going to get into CSC. I need those premium high end expensive optics with a (low-end) pro DSLR body any time I know I'm going to do pictures. The rest of the time I need a really small camera that fits in a pouch on my day bag or on my belt or in my pocket.

Yeah I wasn't sure exactly how you were defining "bridge" as it has changed its categorical meaning over time. Some people even call those silly superzoom's "bridges" (though there is virtually no bridge in performance whatsoever).

Understandably, you may want high performance optics. But the majority of consumers and likely the original poster if his intended budget has anything to say, are likely to end up with only consumer grade optics and zoom ranges. To which, an M43 with a 14-150 or variations in those range would be a much better solution. Basically identical in quality, although we can split hairs over ISO 3200+ and 12 vs 14/16 mpix.

[Franglais]

Yeah I wasn't sure exactly how you were defining "bridge" as it has changed its categorical meaning over time. Some people even call those silly superzoom's "bridges" (though there is virtually no bridge in performance whatsoever).
...

Wikipedia says that the term "Bridge" was originally used for film cameras that were a crossover between a compact and a reflex. Nowadays it just includes cameras that have:

- electronic viewfinder
- fixed lens usually with a wide zoom range
- small sensor

By a strange coincidence, last night at the hypermarket two women asked me what I thought about a bridge camera on display (Panasonic LUMIX with 24x Leica lens - respectable). I asked what they wanted to use it for. Two blonde heads looking wide-eyed at me, silly question.. So I told them that I thought it would be fine for their needs, Panasonic is a major player in this segment. Checked the price afterwards - wow, the same as what I paid for my 40mm f2.8 Macro last month, and I thought that was cheap..

[Franglais]

Inspired by Anbesol's detailed post I went down to my local FNAC (technico-cultural superstore chain dominant in France) and picked up their latest test report.

What Anbesol calls CSC's are also known as MILC (mirrorless interchangeable-lens camera) or in France "Hybrids".

The report is all in French so I won't try to reproduce it. The D3100 comes out fine. Most of the hybrids are also good except at keeping focus on a moving subject.