Nikon 3100 or Canon1100d
- Thread starter mabhi10
- Start date
Gerry_the_Merry
Well-Known Member
Image Quality - there will be more variations between different Nikon models, and between different Canon models, than there will be between Nikon and Canon. In other words, within group differences can be as big as between group differences. Both are brilliant makes, principally lens makers, so what one should keep in mind, among other things, are what lenses are floating around with others in the family, friends circle etc. If most have Nikon go for that, else Canon. You cant go wrong with either in the long run.
Kannan_madhu
Well-Known Member
if photography for you is just a hobby go for canon 1000d
if photography for you is a serious hobby go for canon 1000d
if photography is a profession for you then you know what to go for
if photography for you is a serious hobby go for canon 1000d
if photography is a profession for you then you know what to go for
You need to do some more research on how to buy an SLR. You don't buy a camera, you commit to an ecosystem. Investment in the camera body, 3100 or 1100, will only be a fraction of the total cost. The real investment is in lenses. Both Canon and Nikon are very competent companies and you would be fine with any of them.
If I was buying an SLR body, I would look around and see what my friends have. The ability to borrow a lens when you need it will trump any other criteria.
The lowest end Nikons do not have a motor in the body (too lazy to look up the model numbers). So you will need to buy lenses with focusing motor. I don't know if the Canons do. But again, I would not declare a winner in the Canon/Nikon battle based on this criterion alone.
Edit: Another criterion would be the feel of the camera in the hands. Try as many camera bodies of each make as you can get your hands on. Learn about the controls that the higher models provide. Pick up one which feels better in your hands.
Last edited:
Nikon and canon's are pretty much the same, although the canons have a slight edge in terms of features that they give in the same price band, and also the canon lenses are cheaper, but the lower end Nikon's are better built than canon but as u go higher in the models list build quality is brilliant in both of them.
for u if are going to buy the body and a couple of lenses say 18-135 and a macro or ultrawide or any other lens which suits ur style of photography then go with nikon ( for the better build quality of the slr body)
if u r going to expand ur lenses as u go and plan upgrading the body also in the future then go for canon.
but whatever u buy keep clickin....
My Rs.2
for u if are going to buy the body and a couple of lenses say 18-135 and a macro or ultrawide or any other lens which suits ur style of photography then go with nikon ( for the better build quality of the slr body)
if u r going to expand ur lenses as u go and plan upgrading the body also in the future then go for canon.
but whatever u buy keep clickin....
My Rs.2
As mentioned by thatguy you buy into a system. If you do take photography seriously, lenses would be far more expensive than the camera body !
Nikon has a much advanced flash system, as well as prime lenses, but the canon lenses have far better zoom lenses
At an entry level I would suggest canon since their editing software is free .although it does not matter much these days.
So You really cannot go wrong with either...
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Nikon has a much advanced flash system, as well as prime lenses, but the canon lenses have far better zoom lenses
At an entry level I would suggest canon since their editing software is free .although it does not matter much these days.
So You really cannot go wrong with either...
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Kannan_madhu
Well-Known Member
May i know why you have decided to go for a DSLR ?.
Currently do you own/use a DSLR ?
if not which other Camera you use now ?
What type of photography you are interested in (Macro , Landscape , people, street etc )?
Whats your budget ? Are you willing to spend for this hobby in future or will it be a one time buy ?
Currently do you own/use a DSLR ?
if not which other Camera you use now ?
What type of photography you are interested in (Macro , Landscape , people, street etc )?
Whats your budget ? Are you willing to spend for this hobby in future or will it be a one time buy ?
josedandrew
Active Member
nikon D3100 is better.
in pure technical image quality alone, D3100 beats canon 1100D hands down.
besides, D3100 handles a lot better.
D3100 has better customisation of Auto ISO feature, lets you concentrate on what really matter...picture composition.
anyday I will buy D3100 even if price is few thousand more.
see below..
Nikon D3100
in pure technical image quality alone, D3100 beats canon 1100D hands down.
besides, D3100 handles a lot better.
D3100 has better customisation of Auto ISO feature, lets you concentrate on what really matter...picture composition.
anyday I will buy D3100 even if price is few thousand more.
see below..
Nikon D3100
Hi mabhi,
I do not have direct experience with the D3100 or the 1100D. Let me share my views and some of my points have already been expressed in other responses.
I always liked stunning sharp pictures with well saturated colours taken by Nikon SLRs. I am talking about pre-digital era. I bought a Nikon film SLR in 1982 with a 50/1.8 prime lens and I have used that camera until a few years ago.
A couple of years ago, when I was not in a position to spend a lot but still wanted to get a DSLR, I did not do too much research and being a 'Nikon person' went to the Nikon dealer and bought the lowest priced DSLR with its kit lens (Nikon D3000). In the next 6 months, I took only about 200 shots, all indoors at home, and never took it outside for a shoot. I was terribly disappointed with its low-light (or higher ISO) performance. It was abysmal, there were a lot of grains even at ISO 800. Low ISO performance was quite Nikon-like though. I eventually sold it at a huge loss, the camera was almost new though.
In summer 2010 I ultimately took a hard decision: switched to Canon (fortunately I did not have any other Nikon lenses lying around). Got the phenomenal 550D with its kit lens. A few months later, I also added the very celebrated and expensive 15-85 lens to take full advantage of the camera's potential.
My point is as follows: You have to know what you really want your camera to do. I usually never use flash for indoors and nights, and I need a camera that is capable of doing that even without a fast prime lens. At the same time I like nature photography, and that's why I need a good enough wide lens with a bit of zoom. The 15-85 is simply stunning.
I made a mistake with the D3000. However, I hear that the new D3100 has a lot better low light performance. Nikon also has better flash system, if you are interested in that (although not quite sure about the features of the D3100). In general, Nikon also has reasonably priced excellent quality fast prime lenses. One word of caution: from what I hear, the auto ISO feature is not properly implemented. At auto ISO, with flash the camera sets itself at ISO 3200. It's not only the D3100 where it happens, the problem is there even with D7000. Find out if Nikon has done something about this in the recent months. Another caution: assuming you would shoot in the RAW format, you would need to buy a RAW-processing software from a third party, because Nikon's software package supplied with the camera is the bare minimum and is far from adequate.
With the 550D, my usual shoot is the following: set auto iso, set aperture priority, set aperture, the camera chooses iso, exposure, and shutter speed. Frame, and shoot. The 63-point metering is perfect, exposure and auto focussing is done perfectly and I hardly ever miss a shot. For a photographer or a hobbyist, this is the most important thing, never to miss a shot. I use this setting even for night shoots at high iso. Only for fast moving objects (this is not really my area) instead of aperture priority I use the shutterspeed priority and let the camera do the rest. In the last year and a half, I have about 98% keepers. I always shoot in the RAW mode, so that I can do every desired adjustment later in post-processing. Canon gives a very good software called Digital Photo Professional and many professionals use it for RAW conversion to jpgs.
Am I giving a recommendation for Canon? Not really. As I said, I do not know the 1100D. I have held the previous 1000D in hand, and although that camera felt a bit plasticky and cheap in hand, but took quite good shots at iso 800 and acceptable till 1600. The 1100D should do better, just check the dpreview.com reviews and forum discussions (btw, this is a great site for camera and related stuff).
You can also consider the 550D. I bought it at more than 50k, but now the street price is well under 40k. This is steal of a camera at that price. However, there is a problem, the kit lens (although of reasonble quality and sharp) is not quite good enough for its 18mp, and you need a L or a near-L lens with better resolution. In addition, the better lens will give you better colour saturations, and generally lower distortions and aberrations. Unlike Nikon, Canon does not have too many good lenses at low costs. They have stunning lenses, but their prices are also stunning. I am still looking for a good and fast prime lens (my favourites).
Do not pay too much attention to the number of auto-focussing points. Canon has less, but my 550D focuses fast and beautifully, and yes, for the D3100 and upto D5100, you have to use AF-S lenses if you want to auto-focus (AF and other lenses can be manually focussed of course).
So there you see, there are pros and cons on each side. You have to weigh in all these things depending on your shooting style and subjects and the money you want to spend.
Regards.
I do not have direct experience with the D3100 or the 1100D. Let me share my views and some of my points have already been expressed in other responses.
I always liked stunning sharp pictures with well saturated colours taken by Nikon SLRs. I am talking about pre-digital era. I bought a Nikon film SLR in 1982 with a 50/1.8 prime lens and I have used that camera until a few years ago.
A couple of years ago, when I was not in a position to spend a lot but still wanted to get a DSLR, I did not do too much research and being a 'Nikon person' went to the Nikon dealer and bought the lowest priced DSLR with its kit lens (Nikon D3000). In the next 6 months, I took only about 200 shots, all indoors at home, and never took it outside for a shoot. I was terribly disappointed with its low-light (or higher ISO) performance. It was abysmal, there were a lot of grains even at ISO 800. Low ISO performance was quite Nikon-like though. I eventually sold it at a huge loss, the camera was almost new though.
In summer 2010 I ultimately took a hard decision: switched to Canon (fortunately I did not have any other Nikon lenses lying around). Got the phenomenal 550D with its kit lens. A few months later, I also added the very celebrated and expensive 15-85 lens to take full advantage of the camera's potential.
My point is as follows: You have to know what you really want your camera to do. I usually never use flash for indoors and nights, and I need a camera that is capable of doing that even without a fast prime lens. At the same time I like nature photography, and that's why I need a good enough wide lens with a bit of zoom. The 15-85 is simply stunning.
I made a mistake with the D3000. However, I hear that the new D3100 has a lot better low light performance. Nikon also has better flash system, if you are interested in that (although not quite sure about the features of the D3100). In general, Nikon also has reasonably priced excellent quality fast prime lenses. One word of caution: from what I hear, the auto ISO feature is not properly implemented. At auto ISO, with flash the camera sets itself at ISO 3200. It's not only the D3100 where it happens, the problem is there even with D7000. Find out if Nikon has done something about this in the recent months. Another caution: assuming you would shoot in the RAW format, you would need to buy a RAW-processing software from a third party, because Nikon's software package supplied with the camera is the bare minimum and is far from adequate.
With the 550D, my usual shoot is the following: set auto iso, set aperture priority, set aperture, the camera chooses iso, exposure, and shutter speed. Frame, and shoot. The 63-point metering is perfect, exposure and auto focussing is done perfectly and I hardly ever miss a shot. For a photographer or a hobbyist, this is the most important thing, never to miss a shot. I use this setting even for night shoots at high iso. Only for fast moving objects (this is not really my area) instead of aperture priority I use the shutterspeed priority and let the camera do the rest. In the last year and a half, I have about 98% keepers. I always shoot in the RAW mode, so that I can do every desired adjustment later in post-processing. Canon gives a very good software called Digital Photo Professional and many professionals use it for RAW conversion to jpgs.
Am I giving a recommendation for Canon? Not really. As I said, I do not know the 1100D. I have held the previous 1000D in hand, and although that camera felt a bit plasticky and cheap in hand, but took quite good shots at iso 800 and acceptable till 1600. The 1100D should do better, just check the dpreview.com reviews and forum discussions (btw, this is a great site for camera and related stuff).
You can also consider the 550D. I bought it at more than 50k, but now the street price is well under 40k. This is steal of a camera at that price. However, there is a problem, the kit lens (although of reasonble quality and sharp) is not quite good enough for its 18mp, and you need a L or a near-L lens with better resolution. In addition, the better lens will give you better colour saturations, and generally lower distortions and aberrations. Unlike Nikon, Canon does not have too many good lenses at low costs. They have stunning lenses, but their prices are also stunning. I am still looking for a good and fast prime lens (my favourites).
Do not pay too much attention to the number of auto-focussing points. Canon has less, but my 550D focuses fast and beautifully, and yes, for the D3100 and upto D5100, you have to use AF-S lenses if you want to auto-focus (AF and other lenses can be manually focussed of course).
So there you see, there are pros and cons on each side. You have to weigh in all these things depending on your shooting style and subjects and the money you want to spend.
Regards.
Last edited:
Gerry_the_Merry
Well-Known Member
Asit, L lens is not only very expensive, but very heavy, and for a 550D, the lens mount on the body will get damaged over time. For L series, one must go in for 40D, 50D etc. I would mention that a used 40D, with an L lens, would be a great pick, if in good condition, though it does not have video. Its build quality is phenomenal.
For 550D etc, kit lens, or 18-135 type is the idea weight.
For 550D etc, kit lens, or 18-135 type is the idea weight.
I was very confused between Nikon D5100 and Canon 550D earlier this year. After going through all the available information, I opted for Nikon D5100.
There is a myth that basic Nikon models do not have focussing motor and Canon has it. For the information of everyone, yes Nikon entry models like D3100, D5100 do not have motor and the higher models have it. But Canon entry and high-end models DO NOT have focussing motor at all. All Canon lenses have focusing motor.
People make it an issue that with entry level Nikons, they will need to buy expensive lenses. This holds true for only one lens mostly. Nikon's kit lens, e.g., 18-55mm or 18-105mm have motor. Zoom lenses like 55-200VR, 55-300VR, 70-300VR have motor.
Mostly, people talk about prime lenses, either a 35mm or 50mm 1.8 lens. These costs 11-13k in Nikon. Canon 50mm costs 5-6k. 35mm is not available in Canon which is perfect indoor portrait lens.
So, if you going to buy a 50mm prime lens, you can think that Nikon D3100 is going to cost you 6-7k more. If you are planning to buy a 35mm prime lens, Canon does not have it at any cost.
(50mm works as 75mm and 35mm works as 52.5mm on our non-FX camera bodies like 1100D, D3100, D5100 including the very expensive D7000, 50mm becomes too close for indoor use).
If you not going to buy a prime lens, forget about the term "focusing motor".
PS: I later bought a Nikon D7000. :yahoo:
There is a myth that basic Nikon models do not have focussing motor and Canon has it. For the information of everyone, yes Nikon entry models like D3100, D5100 do not have motor and the higher models have it. But Canon entry and high-end models DO NOT have focussing motor at all. All Canon lenses have focusing motor.
People make it an issue that with entry level Nikons, they will need to buy expensive lenses. This holds true for only one lens mostly. Nikon's kit lens, e.g., 18-55mm or 18-105mm have motor. Zoom lenses like 55-200VR, 55-300VR, 70-300VR have motor.
Mostly, people talk about prime lenses, either a 35mm or 50mm 1.8 lens. These costs 11-13k in Nikon. Canon 50mm costs 5-6k. 35mm is not available in Canon which is perfect indoor portrait lens.
So, if you going to buy a 50mm prime lens, you can think that Nikon D3100 is going to cost you 6-7k more. If you are planning to buy a 35mm prime lens, Canon does not have it at any cost.
(50mm works as 75mm and 35mm works as 52.5mm on our non-FX camera bodies like 1100D, D3100, D5100 including the very expensive D7000, 50mm becomes too close for indoor use).
If you not going to buy a prime lens, forget about the term "focusing motor".
PS: I later bought a Nikon D7000. :yahoo:
Brother you have asked the most popular question that gets discussed in almost all Internet Forums.
It is very difficult to say whether Canon is better or Nikon, both has some pros and cons. I use all Nikon gear and I like its built quality and design better than Canon.
Nikon never compromises on their optics , you have to pay more to get the best.
Now it is upto you to decide which way to go as Canon has some cheap alternative lens available.
Canon gives more features at less cost but sometimes compromises on quality.
If possible go and try both before buying.
It is very difficult to say whether Canon is better or Nikon, both has some pros and cons. I use all Nikon gear and I like its built quality and design better than Canon.
Nikon never compromises on their optics , you have to pay more to get the best.
Now it is upto you to decide which way to go as Canon has some cheap alternative lens available.
Canon gives more features at less cost but sometimes compromises on quality.
If possible go and try both before buying.
Hi Gerry_the_Merry,
Any good lens is heavy, L type or without L type, because the better the lens, the more the lens assembly. The 550D (body alone, without lens) weighs just under 500 gms. My 15-85 lens weighs 575 gms, and the 18-135 that you have written about is a bit lighter at 455 gms. Many people around the world are using both lenses with 550D without any problem so far. When the camera with the lens attached is sitting inside the camera bag, the assembly rests on the lens too and hence the weight of the lens does not fall on the mount. When used in the hand-held mode (as I do all the time, I hardly ever use a tripod), the trick is to hold the camera in the classical way, that is, have your left palm under the lens with the thumb around it (also useful for manual focus override if your autofocus lens allows it) and right hand on the camera hold to do the clicking and other adjustments. The 15-85 lens is heavier than some L lens (for example the 17-40/4L lens weighs only 475 gms). Some people even use the 70-200/4L (700 gms) too with the 550D. A close friend of mine has the 18-135 lens with the 550D, it is a good lens for the money. But the 15-85 is a stunning lens, and overall a better lens IMO than even the 17-55/2.8 (645 gms). The 17-55/2.8 is used with 550D by quite a lot of people around the world.
But your point is well appreciated. There is a limit to which one can do this. More than the mount damage (which I think is quite robust), the camera-lens assembly has to hold right in one's hand and should not be front heavy to the extent that it is difficult to handle.
Generally I like the hold of the Nikon cameras in my hand. However, the 550D is not that bad to hold.
mgdelhi,
You are right that upto D5100 the Nikons do not have the focusing motor in the camera body, and the none of the canons do actually have it. But in case of the Nikons, only the models higher than the D5100 can use the AF lenses with the autofocussing feature, while all Canon cameras can use all their lenses (EF and EF-S) with autofocussing. That's all. Obviously better and more expensive lenses will have a better focusing motor and would also allow manual focus override on the fly.
Deba,
I am a fan of Nikon too. Just that the D3000 was not as good a camera. However, Nikon being a later entrant to the DSLR regime and also being a much smaller company than Canon may not have the software side fully under the control (until recently they did not have much success in the large zoom P&S cameras despite having such good optics). Please look at the auto ISO problems in the D3100 in many forums including dpreview. The cheaper canon lenses, for example the 50/1.8 (at only 6k) are not my favourites, the 50/1.8 can be good if you get a good copy, but the build quality is bad. However, if you are ready to pay a bit more, the Canon lenses are very very good. I do not see any quality issues with my 550D, and I handle it quite roughly at times. Of course the cheaper version 1100D may be another story. But I have a friend (more of a photographer than me) who uses the earlier version 1000D very proudly and even has magazine front page picture taken.
mabhi,
It's a tough decision. Nikon users would say go for Nikon, and similarly for Canon. Having used both, I'd say, be practical, both brands can be simply great. It just has to suit your needs. Once you are in one camp, it is difficult to switch because one usually invest in lenses, and changes the body (of course same brand) after some time.
Regards.
Any good lens is heavy, L type or without L type, because the better the lens, the more the lens assembly. The 550D (body alone, without lens) weighs just under 500 gms. My 15-85 lens weighs 575 gms, and the 18-135 that you have written about is a bit lighter at 455 gms. Many people around the world are using both lenses with 550D without any problem so far. When the camera with the lens attached is sitting inside the camera bag, the assembly rests on the lens too and hence the weight of the lens does not fall on the mount. When used in the hand-held mode (as I do all the time, I hardly ever use a tripod), the trick is to hold the camera in the classical way, that is, have your left palm under the lens with the thumb around it (also useful for manual focus override if your autofocus lens allows it) and right hand on the camera hold to do the clicking and other adjustments. The 15-85 lens is heavier than some L lens (for example the 17-40/4L lens weighs only 475 gms). Some people even use the 70-200/4L (700 gms) too with the 550D. A close friend of mine has the 18-135 lens with the 550D, it is a good lens for the money. But the 15-85 is a stunning lens, and overall a better lens IMO than even the 17-55/2.8 (645 gms). The 17-55/2.8 is used with 550D by quite a lot of people around the world.
But your point is well appreciated. There is a limit to which one can do this. More than the mount damage (which I think is quite robust), the camera-lens assembly has to hold right in one's hand and should not be front heavy to the extent that it is difficult to handle.
Generally I like the hold of the Nikon cameras in my hand. However, the 550D is not that bad to hold.
mgdelhi,
You are right that upto D5100 the Nikons do not have the focusing motor in the camera body, and the none of the canons do actually have it. But in case of the Nikons, only the models higher than the D5100 can use the AF lenses with the autofocussing feature, while all Canon cameras can use all their lenses (EF and EF-S) with autofocussing. That's all. Obviously better and more expensive lenses will have a better focusing motor and would also allow manual focus override on the fly.
Deba,
I am a fan of Nikon too. Just that the D3000 was not as good a camera. However, Nikon being a later entrant to the DSLR regime and also being a much smaller company than Canon may not have the software side fully under the control (until recently they did not have much success in the large zoom P&S cameras despite having such good optics). Please look at the auto ISO problems in the D3100 in many forums including dpreview. The cheaper canon lenses, for example the 50/1.8 (at only 6k) are not my favourites, the 50/1.8 can be good if you get a good copy, but the build quality is bad. However, if you are ready to pay a bit more, the Canon lenses are very very good. I do not see any quality issues with my 550D, and I handle it quite roughly at times. Of course the cheaper version 1100D may be another story. But I have a friend (more of a photographer than me) who uses the earlier version 1000D very proudly and even has magazine front page picture taken.
mabhi,
It's a tough decision. Nikon users would say go for Nikon, and similarly for Canon. Having used both, I'd say, be practical, both brands can be simply great. It just has to suit your needs. Once you are in one camp, it is difficult to switch because one usually invest in lenses, and changes the body (of course same brand) after some time.
Regards.
hi Gerry,
what is the going rate for a used 40d which is two years old with actuations of 40,000. what is the cost of replacig the shutter mechanism in 40D.
I am considering a preowned d5000 with kit lens - sale price is 25K.
d 40 - 30K without any lens
in some review they have rated d5000 as a better model compared to d40.
cheers
after going thru all of these optiones a couple of years bak...i went with the Olympus system as they were more digital firendly and their Kit lenses are far superior to the Canon/Nikon/Pentax Kit lenses..
Of course given a choice i would prefer the Canon 7D perhaps one of the best Low light cameras today.
Of course given a choice i would prefer the Canon 7D
perhaps one of the best Low light cameras today.
soulforged
Well-Known Member
Why not look at Canon 600D (Rebel T3i). It is a latest entry-level DSLR from Canon and has almost all the features that a basic amateur would need. I have been using one for a little over one month now and quite satisfied with it.
I didnt get it - so if the camera body has AF motor then the lens need not? And if the camera does not then lens needs an inbuilt AF motor? Correct?
Then why can't we use AF lenses with lower end Nikons without motor and how is that All Canons can use AF lenses?
Edit:
Does Olympus come with warranty in India? Is it pricier than Nikons/Canons?
--G0bble
Then why can't we use AF lenses with lower end Nikons without motor and how is that All Canons can use AF lenses?
Edit:
after going thru all of these optiones a couple of years bak...i went with the Olympus system as they were more digital firendly and their Kit lenses are far superior to the Canon/Nikon/Pentax Kit lenses..
Of course given a choice i would prefer the Canon 7D
Does Olympus come with warranty in India? Is it pricier than Nikons/Canons?
--G0bble
Nikon has two kinds of Autofocus lenses. One is "AF" and other "AFS". "AF" is the older one and requires a screw on the camera body to rotate the lens elements for focussing, whereas "AFS" lenses have inbuilt motors with pin-type electronic contacts to communicate with the body and adjust the focus.
So to autofocus the "AF" lens the camera body needs to have a motor whereas "AFS" lenses don't need a camera body with motor as they have one of their own. All Nikon camera bodies starting from the D90 and above have focusing motors.
All Canon "EF"(auto focus) lenses are all like the "AFS" lens of Nikon, i.e they have a motor of their own and don't need a camera body with motor.
Last edited:
Buswal,
Gerry_the_Merry is talking about the Canon line of cameras 40D, 50D and these were one level higher than the cameras we have been talking about in this thread. I think you are talking about the Nikon entry level D40 which was a great camera for the price. Yes the Nikon D5000 has better low light performance and generally a better camera than the D40.
Arj,
Have you bought one of these micro 4/3rd cameras? BTW, the 7D and my 550D both have the same sensor, image quality is the same, however, the 7D has other solid advantages: it is faster, it has a far better body, it has slots for putting 2 SD cards etc. Sensor is not the be-all-and-end-all of a camera. 7D is a very good camera, also much heavier and bigger, apart from much higher prices, wouldn't have suited my wife at all.
Soulforged,
600D is also a very good camera. But being new, still costs approx 10k more than 550D which is almost the same as 600D as far as I can see. I feel 550D is a better VFM at this point of time.
G0bble,
Nirrej has already given a very nice explanation.
Regards.
Gerry_the_Merry is talking about the Canon line of cameras 40D, 50D and these were one level higher than the cameras we have been talking about in this thread. I think you are talking about the Nikon entry level D40 which was a great camera for the price. Yes the Nikon D5000 has better low light performance and generally a better camera than the D40.
Arj,
Have you bought one of these micro 4/3rd cameras? BTW, the 7D and my 550D both have the same sensor, image quality is the same, however, the 7D has other solid advantages: it is faster, it has a far better body, it has slots for putting 2 SD cards etc. Sensor is not the be-all-and-end-all of a camera. 7D is a very good camera, also much heavier and bigger, apart from much higher prices, wouldn't have suited my wife at all.
Soulforged,
600D is also a very good camera. But being new, still costs approx 10k more than 550D which is almost the same as 600D as far as I can see. I feel 550D is a better VFM at this point of time.
G0bble,
Nirrej has already given a very nice explanation.
Regards.
Get the Award Winning Diamond 12.3 Floorstanding Speakers on Special Offer
Similar threads
