Canon 1100d or Sony Nex-3

Hi,

I am really confused between 1100d single kit lens and nex-3 twin kit lens and both fall precisely in my budget. Can someone shed some light and suggestions onto which one i should purchase and why.

Thanks

I have a 3+ year old Canon Rebel XT with a few lenses. I wanted something newer and purchased the NEX-5 with all three lenses (18-200mm 16mm pancake and kit). The Sony NEX-5 is a fine camera but I always felt I paid for a Cadillac but was driving a Corolla. It just didn't suit me. I didn't like the menu system even after a firmware upgrade. Three buttons and only two of them lead to menu items that lead to sub-menu items, a very hard to remember matrix. The killer for me was lack of an optical view finder. Although the LCD screen was adjustable for brightness it was not great in bright sunlight. So couple the nearly unusable LCD screen in bright sunlight with a convoluted two button menu system and you have a camera that can be frustrating at times in the sun and irksome with the menu system. I put the whole works up for sale on Craig's list and sold it all and purchased the Canon T3i. My old Rebel XT lenses work great on it (kit, 50mm 1.4 prime, and 28-135 IS USM). Bottom line for me is you can't beat a view finder and others may try to convince you otherwise but I learned my lesson and I write this in hopes of saving you the experience and cost of making a big mistake. I love my T3i, it takes great pictures.

Thanks for your reply. I would proceed with purchasing a dslr, albiet T3i is not within my budget but i will go for T3.

The Canon is a 'traditional' digital SLR in that it uses a mirror and viewfinder to show you the image through the lens optically and in real time. You also have the option of using the rear LCD for live view.

The Sony is a mirrorless interchangeable lens camera, which means that the camera lacks a viewfinder, and instead relies wholly on the rear LCD.

A few thoughts on both systems:

The Canon will be the larger camera (by a fair margin) as it has all the mechanics of the mirror, viewfinder and shutter mechanism to contain.
The Sony has none of this, so will be a much much smaller body.

The Canon has the viewfinder, which projects the image onto the focussing screen optically and in real time, without any lag in the digital processing needed to record and show the image on screen. This image is what is seen through the lens, and won't show the effects of different shutter speed or other camera settings though.

Alongside this the Canon offers you live view on the rear lCD allowing you to view the image on the back like a compact camera.

The Sony only has the rear LCD, which like the Canons live view will allow you to see the effect changing settings has, and show more information such as live histograms and various framing aides.

The Canon has the quicker autofocus when using the viewfinder.

The Canon also seems to be more of a 'system' at the moment - you have the larger selection of lenses given by the Canon EF mount, plus the use of various flashguns and other pieces.

The Sony is newer, so the lenses available are not quite as numerous, but are specifically designed to work with the system. It doesn't have the option to use external flash or other features though.

Basically to sum it up:

The Sony comes across as a high end compact camera - you are limited to using the screen, the lenses and accessories currently available and it isn't quite as powerful (slower af, inbuilt flash only).

The major bonus is in the small size and portability, and for everyday snaps it is a fantastically capable camera - think of a P&S camera on steroids.

The Canon is a 'proper' camera, so more features, more room to expand the system in the future and generally better handling and use, but at the cost of size.

If you just want a good quality, small, everyday camera, then the Sony is ideal

If you want to capture action, or want to get into photography more seriously the Canon will be the better camera to learn with and build on.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/narcosynthesis
http://www.illaname.deviantart.com

Thanks Narcosynthesis

My intention was to know more about photography with manual controls etc but in a small camera. As till now i have only had a basic P&S.

I first thought of going with a bridge camera like HX100v. But then decided against it considering the entry level dslr's have the same price tag. Also the m4/3 range and Nex series appealed to me coming from a P&S background.

But i have now started to understand that they do have their limitations as compared to a standard DSLR and i want to straight away goto a dslr rather than hop from a m4/3 to a dslr again in the future. Since as i understand its more of the lens than the body that matters. So i hope my decision to go with 1100d would be fine.

If you can find a T1i, its a better camera than the T3 and is often the same price these days. Also, differences between the T3i and T2i are pretty minimal (just the fold-out screen mainly).

FJG3 said:

I have...purchased the NEX-5 with all three lenses (18-200mm 16mm pancake and kit). The Sony NEX-5 is a fine camera but I always felt I paid for a Cadillac but was driving a Corolla .

Click to expand...

Great Analogy FJG3 Instant Classic!

To the original poster:
NEX is a very different camera than Canon T3 dslr:

• NEX is really a Big point/shoot
• NEX share the small size advantage of P&S
• but also P&S's disadvantage: (1) lack of control (2) no hot shoe (3) slow not suitable for sports shooting, etc...
• deadly disadvantage: only 3 lens
• sony is very S L O W in releasing new lens
• many NEX owners are frustrated by the slow paste of sony's lens release
• COSTLY NEX camera is expensive, lens like 18-200 is even more Expensive ($1000)
• FUTURE ? - NEX could be great but ONLY IF sony release more lens and better camera for it.

• Canon a Small DSLR
• Small + DSLR may seem like an oxymoron, but the market demands it
• Rebel is for traditional photographer who valued Optical Viewfinder + fast performance of a DSLR, but in a smallest size possible for traveling purposes
• cheap camera you can pickup new and used Rebel at huge discount
• cheap lens , several hundreds of lens to choose from
• Many 3rd party support: Tokina, Tamron, Sigma, Contax (manual), etc...

To me, its an easy choice: Canon is less expensive and more flexible. I like the size of NEX, but until sony release new lens at an affordable price, NEX is just another expensive point/shoot.

aayushjoshi said:

Thanks Narcosynthesis

My intention was to know more about photography with manual controls etc but in a small camera. As till now i have only had a basic P&S.

Click to expand...

DSLR is the way to go if this is your intention

aayushjoshi said:

I first thought of going with a bridge camera like HX100v. But then decided against it considering the entry level dslr's have the same price tag. Also the m4/3 range and Nex series appealed to me coming from a P&S background.

But i have now started to understand that they do have their limitations as compared to a standard DSLR and i want to straight away goto a dslr rather than hop from a m4/3 to a dslr again in the future. Since as i understand its more of the lens than the body that matters. So i hope my decision to go with 1100d would be fine.

Click to expand...

1100D--go for it.

007peter said:

FJG3 said:

I have...purchased the NEX-5 with all three lenses (18-200mm 16mm pancake and kit). The Sony NEX-5 is a fine camera but I always felt I paid for a Cadillac but was driving a Corolla .

Click to expand...

Great Analogy FJG3 Instant Classic!

To the original poster:
NEX is a very different camera than Canon T3 dslr:

• NEX is really a Big point/shoot
• NEX share the small size advantage of P&S
• but also P&S's disadvantage: (1) lack of control (2) no hot shoe (3) slow not suitable for sports shooting, etc...
• deadly disadvantage: only 3 lens
• sony is very S L O W in releasing new lens
• many NEX owners are frustrated by the slow paste of sony's lens release
• COSTLY NEX camera is expensive, lens like 18-200 is even more Expensive ($1000)
• FUTURE ? - NEX could be great but ONLY IF sony release more lens and better camera for it.

Click to expand...

Just like Sony's Betamax

007peter said:

• Canon a Small DSLR
• Small + DSLR may seem like an oxymoron, but the market demands it
• Rebel is for traditional photographer who valued Optical Viewfinder + fast performance of a DSLR, but in a smallest size possible for traveling purposes
• cheap camera you can pickup new and used Rebel at huge discount
• cheap lens , several hundreds of lens to choose from
• Many 3rd party support: Tokina, Tamron, Sigma, Contax (manual), etc...

To me, its an easy choice: Canon is less expensive and more flexible. I like the size of NEX, but until sony release new lens at an affordable price, NEX is just another expensive point/shoot.

Click to expand...

Thanks to all of you ie Shorthand, 007peter, logs90 for your suggestions and replies.

I am going for the 1100D as 550D is still costly and out of my budget of 600$. If you know any place where i can get the 550d for cheaper do let me know. So far my search hasnt yielded any results.

Look for a 500D. If you can find it, its better. In many cases its near the same price as the 1100D.

Funny that you mention the 500D. I too thought that its prices would have come down considerably, however it is selling for exactly the same price as a 550D. Not sure what business is driving the sales though!

Hi,
IMHO it all depends on following things:

• Handling : Whether you prefer real camera, 35mm like touch or smartphone handling. It's no offense, it's about preferences.
• Portability: Small body of 4/3 is pocketable but only with the flat pancake lens. Otherwise it is not big difference to the Rebel-sized DSLR.
• Viewfinder or screen preference

guinness2 said:

Hi,
IMHO it all depends on following things:

• Handling : Whether you prefer real camera, 35mm like touch or smartphone handling. It's no offense, it's about preferences.
• Portability: Small body of 4/3 is pocketable but only with the flat pancake lens. Otherwise it is not big difference to the Rebel-sized DSLR.
• Viewfinder or screen preference

Click to expand...

Hi guinness2,

I can do with any kind of camera which gives me all the options that a dslr has to offer.

Smaller, Lighter the better. Coming from a P&S i dont mind the lcd screen or a touch screen for that matter.

aayushjoshi said:

Hi guinness2,

Click to expand...

aayushjoshi said:

Smaller, Lighter the better.

Click to expand...

Well, yes & no. Camera should have body and weight for stable shooting in my opinion
But as I said, YMMW

it is a better stepping stone for move forward in DSLR and more manual photography. The size may be a bit larger than NEX 3, but you will get used to it. Eventually all higher end DSLRs will have similar size.

I now think that i need to compare 1100D with D3100 seriously, ny thoughts?

Narcosynthesis said:

The Canon also seems to be more of a 'system' at the moment - you have the larger selection of lenses given by the Canon EF mount, plus the use of various flashguns and other pieces.

The Sony is newer, so the lenses available are not quite as numerous, but are specifically designed to work with the system. It doesn't have the option to use external flash or other features though.

Click to expand...

There are almost countless lenses available for the Canon - kit lenses, more expensive lenses, lenses from third-party companies... The number of lenses you can get for a Canon is huge, way more than can be gotten for the Sony. Plus, you have the option of shopping around and/or buying used (at savings of half or more) with the Canon, much more than the Sony.

But the big difference really is in the type of camera. The better one for your use depends on how each fits with how you want to use it. A genuine viewfinder will always be a valuable asset over and above an LCD. All else being equal (and it isn't) I could not consider a camera without a viewfinder, even an electronic one. Working with an LCD all the time is a real kludge.
--
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. So is a gnat.

Thanks for the reply Midwest, i have made up my mind to ditch Sony. Now the confusion is between D3100 and 1100D

well, that's a much harder choice to make.

Between Nikon and Canon, there are pros and cons for both. Canon has better lens line up and you can move up to higher end in the future with ease. Nikon has better camera body (my personal view), e.g. D3S which has THE BEST low light performance with full frame and FAST. But the difference can be subtle depends on what your usage.

Choose Canon and wait for 5Dmk3 ;-)